Homosexual Child Molestations By Foster Parents: Illinois, 1997-2002


Do those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately sexually abuse foster or adoptive children as reported by child protective services? Illinois child services reported sexual abuse for 1997 through 2002. 270 parents committed “substantiated” sexual offenses against foster or subsidized adoptive children: 67 (69%) of 97 mother and 148 (86%) of 173 father perpetrators sexually abused girls; 30 (31%) mother and 25 (14%) of father perpetrators sexually abused boys (i.e., 92 [34%] of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges). 15 of these parents both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 mothers and 4 fathers, sons by 3 mothers (i.e., same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%). Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to sexually abuse foster or adoptive children.

In a general population random sample of 3,714 adults from five metropolitan areas, Cameron, Proctor, Coburn, Larson, Forde, & Cameron (1986) listed 6 (0.2%) reported “serious sexual advances” (p., 329) against them by a foster parent [3 homosexual against girls; 3 heterosexual: 1 against a boy, 2 against girls] – that is, 6 (0.59%) of 1,021 “serious sexual advances” reported by various caretakers. One woman also reported that his advance led to “sexual contact” with a male foster parent – that is, 0.27% of 369 “sexual contacts” reported with various caretakers/relatives. Of these 6 sexual interactions, all of which would presumably have been actionable, 3 were homosexual. On their face, t hese results seem to validate traditional concerns about sexual recruitment of children by homosexuals (Levitt & Klassen, 1974). In 1987, the National Association of Social Workers [NASW] ignored this finding and without proffering any evidence to the contrary, passed a resolution decrying “resistance to using single parents, …including lesbian and gay parents, as potential foster care and adoption resources.”

In what appears to be the second empirical study bearing on the issue, 14 years of news stories about foster parent molestation of charges in the 50 largest circulation newspapers in the English-speaking world was reviewed (Cameron, 2003). 12 (57%) of the 21 male and 3 of the 4 female perpetrators (e.g., 15 [60%] of the 25 perpetrators) in these stories homosexually molested their charges.

Two studies – one from a sample of victims, the other from a sample of stories about victims and perpetrators — indicated that perhaps half of foster parent molestations were upon members of the same sex. Would about the same fraction of homosexual molestations obtain if the data was collected and reported by child protective services?


Responding to a Freedom of Information Act Request, the Illinois Department of Children & Family Services provided a complete list of “substantiated physical or sexual abuse” by perpetrator’s sex as well as the sex of victim(s) for 1997 through 2002. Marital status of parent perpetrators is not recorded in Illinois and number of children abused per perpetrator or whether multiple perpetrators violated the same child was not available. Behavior is potentially observable, thus ‘objective’ unlike an individual’s feelings or subject to dispute as a psychiatrist’s diagnosis. As Ross, Essien, Williams, & Fenandez-Esquer (2003) noted “sexual behavior is not always adequately represented by self-labeling of sexual identity” (p. 113), and because of this most recent population surveys have indexed behavior rather than reported ‘identity’ (e.g., Spira, Bajos & the ACSF group, 1994; Wellings, Field, Johnson, Wadsworth, 1994; Anderson, Wilson, Barker, Doll, Jones, & Holtgrave, 1999). Since the meaning of a homosexual is “sexual relations between persons of the same sex” (1992 New Illustrated Webster’s Dictionary ), and in the 1996 Centers for Disease Control [CDC] national sexuality survey ‘homosexual’ was defined as someone who had sex with their sex irrespective of age of partner (Anderson, et al., 1999), it seemed sensible to use “ homosexual” behaviorally and descriptively – referring to those who have sex with their sex — irrespective of age of partner.

Considering those who sexually interact with the underage as ‘pedophiles’ is not particularly useful. Bell & Weinberg (1978) asked 671 homosexual men and 288 homosexual women from a quasi-random sample in San Francisco about the proportions of their homosexual partners who “were 16 or younger when you were 21 or older” (p. 311). Of the men, 77% said “none,” 23% said “half or less,” and none said “more than half;” of the women, 94% said “none,” 3.8% said “half or less,” and none said “more than half.” While, 156 (23%) of the men and 11 (4%) of the women admitted to having had some sex with children, none was a “pedophile” in the sense of only having had sex with or could only have sex with children.


There were 963 offenders whose kind of abuse and sex of victim(s) were known (2 mothers physically abused children of unspecified sex, an offender of unknown sex abused child[ren] of unknown sex in an unspecified way). Substantiated sexual abuse was reported for 270 parents: 67 (69%) of 97 mothers and 148 (86%) of 173 fathers sexually abused girls; 30 mothers and 25 fathers sexually abused boys (i.e., 92 [34%] homosexually abused their charges). Substantiated physical abuse was found for 708 parents: 268 (49%) of 544 mothers and 68 (41%) of 164 fathers physically abused daughters; 276 mothers and 96 fathers physically abused sons (i.e., 52%of perpetrators abused boys). 15 parents both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 mothers and 4 fathers, and sons by 3 mothers (i.e., when both forms of abuse were substantiated, same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%).

On average, yearly there were 60,093 children in 4,300 foster- or adoption-subsidized homes in Illinois. For the 6-year period, 966 parents engaged in “substantiated” abuse after an investigation was conducted. Assuming one perpetrator per home, per year, children were sexually abused in about 1% (45/4,300) and physically abused in about 3% (118/4,300). Physical abuse occurred in 6% of the homes where sexual abuse occurred, sexual abuse occurred in 2% of homes where physical abuse occurred.


Illinois is the sixth largest state with about 12 million inhabitants and is slightly more urban than the U.S. as a whole. The Illinois rates, which do not include neglect, appear similar to the national average of 6.1% for “child abuse and neglect” reported by the U.S. Health and Human Services (Branigin, 2003).

Estimates of the proportion of adults who have engaged in homosexual sex in the past 12 months vary. The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse/CDC study (www.icpsr.umich.edu/samhda) estimated that 1.2% of those aged 18 to 59 reported sex with a member of their sex [no age specified] in the past 12 months, other estimates put the number at around 2-3% (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael, & Michaels, 1994).

Ottawa, Canada was among the first jurisdictions to aggressively recruit homosexual foster parents. As of October 24, 2002, 9 of 278 Ottawa’s approved foster homes included known homosexuals, and two of these homes had not yet been given a foster-child (Brooks, 2002), i.e., less than 3% of Ottawa’s placements were homosexual. Thus, those who engage in sex with their own sex appear to be employed as foster- and adoptive-parents in proportions at or below their presence in the general population.

The proportion of molestations of foster children that were homosexual in the general population survey by Cameron, et al . (1986) was 50%, while the proportion of molestations of foster children that were homosexual in 14 years of newspaper stories about foster parent molestations was 60% (Cameron, 2003). The Illinois material collected and reported by that state’s child protective services — 34% homosexual — was lower than either of the two published estimates. The prior 2 estimates were based upon small numbers of data points – 6 in Cameron, et al ., 1986 and 25 in Cameron, 2003. It is therefore tempting to believe that the 270 data points reported from Illinois results in an estimate closer to the ‘real, underlying proportion’ – but further studies will be required to be more certain as to which estimate is closest. Nonetheless, the disproportionality of the homosexual footprint was evident in each dataset. These three methods, though differing in their estimates of homosexual molestation, tend to cross-validate each other. As such, support for abandoning the tradition of excluding homosexuals as foster parents as recommended by the NASW was not found.


Anderson, J.E., Wilson, R. W., Barker, P., Doll, L., Jones, T.S., & Holtgrave, D. (1999) Prevalence of sexual and drug-related HIV risk behaviors in the U.S. adult population: results of the 1996 national household survey on drug abuse. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 21, 148-156.

Bell, A. P. & Weinberg, M. S. (1978) Homosexualities: a study of diversity among men and women . New York: Simon & Schuster.

Branigin, W. (2003) Officials assess county child welfare system. Washington Post , 7/10/03, p. TO3.

Brooks, M. (2002) CAS seeks gay foster parents: Move reflects changing face of Canadian family. Ottawa Citizen , 10/24/02, p. Al.

Cameron, P., Proctor, K., Coburn, W., Larson, H., Forde, N., & Cameron, K. (1986) Child molestation and homosexuality. Psychological Reports , 38, 327-337.

Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., Michaels, S. (1994) The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States . Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Levitt, E.E., & Klassen, A.D., Jr. (1974). Public Attitudes toward homosexuality: part of the 1970 national survey by the Institute for Sex Research. Journal of Homosexuality , 1, 29-43.

Ross, M. W., Essien, E. J., Williams, M. L., & Fernandez-Esquer, M. E. (2003) Concordance between sexual behavior and sexual identity in street outreach samples of four racial/ethnic groups. Sexually Transmitted Disease 30,110-113.

Spira, A., Bajos, N. & the ACSF group. (1994) Sexual behaviour and AIDS . Aldershot: Avebury.

Wellings, K., Field, .J, Johnson, A. M., Wadsworth, J. (1994) Sexual behaviour in Britain: the national survey of sexual attitudes and lifestyles. London: Penguin.

Note: IllinoisLeader.com filed the freedom of information act (FOIA) request.

Reciprocal Beneficiaries

Some conservative and pro-family organizations have touted reciprocal beneficiary agreements as a way to sidestep and perhaps prevent the adoption of gay marriage, domestic partnerships, or civil unions for homosexuals. The truth is just the opposite. Reciprocal beneficiary agreements are merely a lesser step in the same direction. Indeed, they amount to a form of ‘marriage lite’ for homosexuals. Explore the links on the left to find out more.

Revisiting New Republic’s Attack on Cameron

A rebuttal to the accusation that Dr. Cameron was dropped from the American Psychological Association (APA)

-A reprint of an article in the Family Research Report, Nov-Dec, 1994.A number of attacks against Dr. Paul Cameron and Family Research Institute have appeared lately. While such attacks are not new, their volume and intensity is increasing even as the reach and importance of FRI grows.

The New Republic, a left-wing magazine with a circulation of 100,000 and a newly installed homosexual editor, Andrew Sullivan, attacked Dr. Paul Cameron with a two page article October 3,1994 (click here to view this article and resulting correspondence…). His reply and facsimiles of the key documents that were sent to The New Republic are included in this online rebuttal.

* Dr. Cameron was not “dropped” from the APA. The first document, dated November 7, 1982 is a copy of the letter sent by Dr. Cameron announcing his resignation from the APA. By this point, all previous disputes between him and the APA had been settled, and there were no other charges or inquiries into possible ethical violations pending against him. The last previous correspondence from the APA was dated October 18, 1982, reminding Cameron that it had closed his dispute with 6 U. Nebraska psychologists.

November 29, 1982 marked the APA President’s acceptance of Cameron’s resignation. In March 1983, the APA Monitor (the official internal organ of the APA) published Cameron’s letter detailing his reasons for resigning. As per the APA President’s request, this letter had been sent January 12, 1983.

A commentary on the March letter was published in June 1983 (click here…). Although Pietrzyk asserts that one cannot resign from the APA while under an ethics probe, this rings hollow considering that the APA President and APA Monitor did nothing to challenge Cameron’s decision to resign. Only after the accepted resignation did the ethics committee “drop” Cameron for non-cooperation (see December 2, 1983 letter). Most of this and considerably more was covered in exchanges between Dr. Cameron and various adversaries from the U. Nebraska between October 1985 and March 1986 in the Nebraska Medical Journal.

* On October 12, letters editor Amy Sheffer said that editor Sullivan had just told her to delete Cameron’s observation that “Scientists besides myself have noted the addiction to falsehood and deception that is characteristic of homosexuals. Why didn’t The New Republic reveal that your author is a member of a gay rights group?”

She said that since they had noted that Pietrzyk wrote for the Log Cabin Republicans, such a designation was unnecessary. FRI replied that this was deceptive since few knew that the Log Cabin Republicans was a gay rights group. The sentence was retained.

There are a number of criticisms raised in The New Republic article. Some appear plausible, and some have been picked up and repeated as gospel truth by nonhomosexual newspapers.

Addressing some of these:

* “he is the architect of unreliable ‘surveys’ that purport to show strains of violence and depravity in gay life.”

Response: Gays create myths for their political and psychological comfort. They want to be seen as “shocked by any claim that we are other than kind, gentle people.” One homosexual contends that “gays are an experiment by nature in an attempt to create a human nature more compatible with the requirements of civil society.”1

But the gay life is a life of violence and depravity:

– FRI has published2 estimates from its national sex survey that suggest that 80% of gays have engaged in oral-anal contact at least once in their life. Such unhealthy and unsanitary practice is commonplace among homosexuals.

– 40% of 4,808 Canadian gays in 1991-1992 admitted to oral-anal sex in the last 3 months, according to a governmentfunded study run by gays representing the largest survey of homosexuals in Canada.3

– In the largest-ever study of homosexuals, completed just this year by The Advocate, the national weekly gay magazine, 13,000 readers responded to the questionnaire. The Advocate said that 45% of respondents “loved” anal/oral sex. Additionally, 20% said that they had engaged in bondage and discipline and 10% in sadomasochism in the past 5 years. And, most tellingly, among those who knew that they had the AIDS virus, “11% have said or implied that they were HIV-negative in order to have sex.” (8/23, p. 23)

FRI 2 found that about 13% of gays said that they had been raped, and a third had participated in sadomasochism.5

A study of 930 English gays asked whether they had ever been “sexually molested or raped?” 28% answered “yes.” In half (47%) of these cases the victim was either forcibly anally penetrated or an attempt to do so was made. Of men over 21 years of age, 52 cases (66% of the total reported) “were assaulted by regular or casual sexual partners.”

The authors of the English study (who appear to be homosexuals themselves) note that “Fantasies of the sexually forceful man, the pleasure of ‘being taken;’ and the excitement of power-driven sex are very common in gay culture and pornography. All these collective sexual fantasies normalize sexual abuse and rape of gay men by gay men, providing motivation, justification, and normalization for the assault. It is difficult to see how a climate of intolerance towards sexual aggression can be achieved when sexual aggression is one of the mainstays of collective sexual fantasies.” (p. 293)

* “Although thousands of heterosexuals allegedly responded to his survey, Cameron could get only 41 gay men and 24 lesbians to respond. The extremely small sample size should have invalidated any conclusions about the sexual behavior of the gay population.”

Response: There are two problems with this criticism: 1) Pietrzyk didn’t accurately report how many gays and lesbians were in our sample; 2) he fails to understand modern statistical sampling theory.2

We reported all our comparisons between those who were exclusively heterosexual v the combined group of bisexuals and homosexuals. We had approximately 85 gays and 70 lesbians for each comparison though, as in all such studies, not every respondent answered each question. Combining bisexuals and homosexuals has become rather typical because their distinguishing characteristic is having same-sex relations. The new U. Chicago sex survey also combined bisexuals and homosexuals. It captured only 43 bi/homosexual men and 27 bi/homosexual women in its sample.6

The reason for these seemingly low numbers is that FRI, unlike Kinsey and the bulk of studies in the sexological literature, utilized random area cluster sampling techniques. Because homosexuals make up only a tiny fraction of the population, they show up in small numbers in any survey that randomly draws from the places people live. However, it is possible to have a fair degree of confidence in the generalizability of our results to “urban homosexuals-in-general,” at least for the time we did the survey.

Kinsey had 2,000 volunteer homosexuals. But our findings, based on a random sample a twelfth the size of his, are far more apt to be representative of homosexuals-in-general. With more money and time, we would have drawn a larger sample and our results would be more certain still. Having said that, however, as the studies about gays accumulate, the parameters we published look “solid.”

For instance, we reported that 4% of men and 16% of women claimed that they had been “raped.” The U. Chicago survey did not ask about rape, per se. Instead it reported that 22% of women and 2% of men were “forced to do something sexually at some time.” (p. 223)4
9 In his counter reply, Pietrzyk says he’d “sure like to know the source for Cameron’s claim that ‘one third of American men have served in the Armed Forces.”‘

Response: On p. 343 of the Statistical Abstract of the United States 1990, we find that over 27,000,000 men have served. Since there were under 79,000,000 men over the age of 18 in 1990, the math is straightforward.

We can only report what our respondents tell us. It is noteworthy that Pietrzyk considers “preposterous” that ” 13 percent have served time in prison.” Since FRI actually asked “Have you ever been jailed or imprisoned for a crime?” Pietrzyk demonstrates his inability to get the facts straight. By comparison, the U. Chicago sex survey6 reports that “about 13%” of its respondents (both men and women) had “ever spent the night in jail.” (p. 219) It actually asked if respondents had ever “spent one night or more” “in (a military jail), jail, prison, reform school or detention center.” (p. 612)

*Pietrzyk rails about our utilizing obituaries from gay journals and calls it “a methodology that would not pass an undergraduate statistics course.”

Response: Our methodology was good enough for the Eastern Psychological Assn convention in 1993. Dr. Charles Smith of SUNY at Buffalo, chair of the session, publicly commended our novel approach and said he was going to warn the gays at his institution about the hazards of their ways. Further, it was good enough for the refereed scientific journal Omega in 1994, a journal specifically devoted to studies of death and dying.

The U. Chicago study provides grist for FRI’s mill as well. Note p. 305:

age % men gay % women lesbian
18-29 2.9 1.6
30-39 4.2 1.8
40-49 2.2 1.3
50-59 0.5 0.4

These results should have given the authors a clear warning that homosexuals were much less apt to be old, yet they chose not to comment. Our lifespan study offers a plausible reason for the paucity of older homosexuals in the U. Chicago study: they die young. Other explanations for these findings require much more convoluted logic. For example, note that the proportions of homosexuals do not top out in the youngest age group. Therefore, it would be difficult to attribute the distribution of findings solely to the growth of the gay movement. Another plausible explanation would be that older homosexuals simply drop out of the lifestyle (if they don’t die first). However, if proved true, this would simultaneously argue that gays can and do change, as well as suggest that the gay lifestyle offers scant long-term satisfaction.

*Pietrzyk repeatedly questions Dr. Cameron’s scholarly credentials and “conveniently” avoids using his professional title of “Dr.”

Response: Pietrzyk is a political science graduate student at George Washington University. He has failed numerous times to get his facts straight in this brief article in the New Republic. Dr. Cameron has published over 60 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and has written several books. How does being a member of a gay club qualify Pietrzyk to engage in scholarly critique?

*Pietrzyk complains that we have analyzed only “sexual mass murder” and found homosexuals responsible for about half of these sprees.

Response: He doesn’t deny the facts about sexually- motivated murders, he merely tries to divert attention toward serial and other non-sexual mass murders.

*Pietrzyk claims that we have “distorted” the evidence for disproportionate child molestation by gays.

Response: He cites our 1987 pamphlet on child molestation. It was updated in 1993. With new information our estimate of the proportion of homosexuals has dropped from 4% to between “1% to 3%” and our estimate of the proportion of homosexual molestations to “between a fifth and a third.” Thus the relative proportion of homosexual molestation has remained about the same (“the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual”).

*Pietrzyk claims that Cameron advocated the “extermination of male homosexuals.”

Response: The Forum interviewer remarked that many societies have considered homosexuality a capital crime. Noting that it would be cheaper to kill homosexuals in primitive societies than jail or quarantine them is hardly an endorsement. In fact, Cameron is quoted in the same article as saying that such an idea is “not politically, ethically or socially acceptable” today. Where former Surgeon General Koop got his information is mystifying. He never asked Dr. Cameron whether he advocated such a policy.

*Pietrzyk calls “extreme” and “absurdly high” FRI’s estimate that lesbians are “nineteen times more apt to have syphilis than straight women and four times more apt to have had scabies.”

Response: Pietrzyk finally has it right. That’s just what we reported in the Nebraska Medical Journal in 1985.7 We also p. 6 reported that lesbians were three times as apt to have had a genital discharge, and twice as apt to have sores on their genitals.

The new U. Chicago6 survey does not report its sexually transmitted disease findings for lesbians. However, it reports that lesbians had about 4 times as many sexual partners as heterosexual women, were considerably more apt to engage in 11 unusual sexual practices,” and that a larger number of partners was associated with higher STD rates. It is probable that it found essentially what we found but was reluctant to publish the findings. [see ‘New Sex Survey: Dishonest Science’ in this issue of Family Research Report]

*Pietrzyk calls our 1983 national sex survey “discredited.”

Response: Since results from the FRI survey have been published in a number of scientific journals (e.g., Nebraska Medical Journal, Psychological Reports, Lancet, and Science), and have formed the basis for a number of scientific papers presented to the Eastern Psychological Assn, it would appear that it is “discredited” by gay activists, not by scientists.

FRI’s sex survey was one of the first national sex surveys to be drawn on a random sample. Random samples are supposed to give representative samples. Theory aside, however, proof is always in whether the technique “works;” that is, whether FRI’s results stack-up against other well-done surveys. For instance, how do FRI’s results compare to the recent U. Chicago effort?

FRI, in attempting to interview people from age 18 through the end of adulthood, ran into a buzzsaw of high rejection rates in people aged 50 or above. Overall, almost half of our potential respondents refused to fill out our questionnaire. But the median age of those who rejected was 55, meaning we got high rates of compliance for those in their 20s and 30s and miserable rates of compliance for those in their 60s, 70s, and 80s.

The lore that has developed from doing Gallup polls and similar surveys is “those who don’t respond are generally much like those who do.” So FRI reported its rejection-rate and then ignored the nonresponders when reporting results – just as the U. Chicago study did. We assumed that a person who initially rejected the survey would not be worth the effort and cost of a follow-up appeal. So we put our limited resources (about $100,000) toward fattening the size of the sample rather than re-visiting rejecters. All told, we got usable responses from almost 5,200 adults.

U. Chicago paid its respondents $25 to $35 apiece and apparently repeatedly called-back its rejecters, offering them more money to get them to cooperate. It got almost 3,200 adults for $2,400,000. Still, 20% of their respondents refused to take the survey though offered considerable sums of money. So their findings, like ours, could be way off if those who rejected were quite different from those who cooperated. No one will ever know. But since they found “no relation between respondent fee [up to $100] and quality of the information provided” (p. 56), it fits the model that such pursuit is probably unwarranted.

Beside detail about sampling theories, what proof emerges from the empirical pudding? How do the results of these two surveys, one greased with high levels of effort on the part of a few highly-trained and closely supervised interviewers while essentially ignoring refusals, the other with over 200 interviewers and the willingness to expend significant time and money to reduce the rejection rate, compare? They were very close. 6,7

Where both surveys asked similar questions, similar point estimates were generated. Comparing the two samples:

– ever syphilis in life?

FRI men – 2.4%, women – 0.9%
U C men – 0.9%, women – 0.7%.

– ever gonorrhea in life?
FRI men – 11.2%, women – 3.7%
U C men – 9%, women – 4.7%

– ever genital warts in life?
FRI men 5.0%, women – 4.3%
U C men 3.3%, women – 5.9%

– ever hepatitis in life?
FRI men – 3.6%, women – 2.4%
U C men – 1.3%, women – 0.9%

The lower figures on hepatitis for the U. Chicago study may be related to their claim that “hepatitis A is not sexually transmitted but hepatitis B is.” Subsequently they “eliminated the cases that were evidently type A from the counts.” (p. 380) More generally, the FRI study was only done in urban areas compared to the broader geographic coverage of the U. Chicago study. Still, examination of the unweighted comparisons above suggests that all the differences were within one or two percentage points.

Furthermore, about 21% of FRI females reported having “obtained an abortion” while 19% of the U. Chicago women said that they had ever “had an abortion.” (p. 457)

9% of gays and 5% of lesbians in the U. Chicago effort reported that they were heterosexual virgins. (p. 311) 8% of FRI’s gays and 5% of our lesbians reported that they were heterosexual virgins. Since few homosexuals in either survey were over age 50, where rejecters became a significant problem, we could expect high levels of agreement between both methodologies.

*Associated Press: The AP article (click here to view…) was carried by the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph on 9/16/94. FRI called AP on 10/12 about the falsehoods that Cameron: 1), “is barred from practicing psychology in Nebraska” and 2) had falsified data about homosexuals. AP was faxed a copy of Cameron’s license and a copy of the Bangor Daily News correction (see above). The Gazette Telegraph published the AP correction on 10/26/94 after FRI informed it of its existence.

* The Advocate wrote on 11/1/94 that “Cameron, who contends that gays and lesbians are sexual deviants, was expelled from the American Psychological Association in 1983 for falsifying research data about gays. He was also barred from practicing in Nebraska, the only state in which he had been licensed.” (p. 16)

* The Bangor Daily News, 10/10/90, had the following as part of its story of a Cameron visit to Maine: “The APA, however, said that Cameron was dropped from the membership because of a violation of the APA’s code of ethics involving the misuse of colleagues’ research.” It published the correction. Maine has a constitution which permits suits for libel irrespective of their proven economic impact. Newspapers in Maine publish corrections with dispatch.

References: 1. Harry J. (1982) Gay children grown up. NY: Praeger, p. 168. 2. Cameron P, Cameron K., & Proctor, K. (1989) Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychological Reports, 64, 1167-1179. 3. Doing it in the 90s. Canadian AIDS Society, May 1993.4. Michael, RT, Gagnon, JH, Laumann, EO, & Kolata G. (1994) NY:Little, Brown. 5. Hickson, F.C.I., et al. (1994) Gay men as victims of nonconsensual sex. Archives Sexual Behavior, 23, 281-294. 6. Laurnarm, EO, Gagnon JH, Michael, RT, Michaels, S. (1994) The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: U. Chicago Press. 7. Cameron, P, et al. (1985) Sexual orientation and sexually transmitted disease. Nebraska Medical Journal, 70, 292-299.

Does Incest Cause Homosexuality?

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: A random sample of 5,182 adults from 6 U.S. metropolitan areas were questioned about incestuous sexual relationships during childhood. Incest was disproportionately reported by both male and female bisexuals and homosexuals. 148 gays (7.7% of the sample) reported 14 (50%) of same-sex, and 7 (22%) of opposite-sex incestuous experiences, and 20 (69%) of same-sex and 2 (3%) of opposite-sex sexual experiences with other relatives. 88 lesbians (3% of the sample) reported 2 (33%) of same-sex incest and 7 (9%) of opposite-sex incest and 1 (17%) of same-sex and 10 (13%) of opposite-sex sexual experiences with other relatives. 12% of 98 male homosexuals vs 0.8% of 1,224 male heterosexuals with a brother reported brother-brother incest. These findings are consonant with those of other studies in which disproportionately more incest by homosexuals was reported. As opposed to an evolutionary genetic hypothesis, these data support the alternative that homosexuality may be learned, since homosexuals do not produce children at sustainable levels and the incidence of homosexuality varies as a function of various social factors. Incest cannot be excluded as a significant basis for homosexuality.

References: Psychological Reports, 1995, 76, 611-621.

Psychology of the Scientist: LXXXV. Research on Homosexuality: A Response to Schumm (and Herek)

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: Because social science is “messy,” just about any criticism of any work — including our efforts — has validity. But the empiricist principle is more important than a theoretical search for perfection in research. The findings from our 1983-1984 nationwide random survey are superior to earlier efforts and similar enough to those reported by the 1992 nationwide random survey conducted by University of Chicago investigators, the 1994 British effort, and the 1996 NHSDA to suggest all approximate “a similar truth about reported sexuality.”

References: Psychological Reports, 2003, 92, 259-274.

Homosexual Partnerships and Homosexual Longevity: A Replication

Author: Paul Cameron

Summary: Replicating previous findings that homosexuals are underrepresented after middle age, the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (N = 12,381) and 2000 Kaiser Family Foundation 15-city survey (N = 405) reported that homosexual men and women are seldom aged 50+ yr. and that older homosexuals are more apt to have a homosexual partner. Deaths of 228 homosexuals as recorded in the Washington Blade 1999-2001 were examined. Although more apt to have a partner when older, the median age of death of 88 homosexually partnered men was 45 yr., while for 118 unpartnered homosexual men it was 46 yr. This is consistent with the suggestion that homosexual partnering may be an additional hazard to men.

References: Psychological Reports, 2002, 91, 671-678.

Oddities in Kirkpatrick, Et Al.’s Study of Children of Lesbian Mothers

Author: Paul Cameron

Summary: Kirkpatrick, et al.’s 1976 study of what happened to 20 lesbians’ children has received considerable attention, apparently later being matched with 20 heterosexuals’ children. In 2004, Kirkpatrick generally acknowledged Schumm’s caution that her findings are less impressive than are needed, yet, Kirkpatrick stated her “early findings have been reinforced” and that “no evidence of differences in the children grouped by the mother’s sexual orientation” have been documented by subsequent research. Close examination of the data of these studies indicates that children from 13 lesbian mothers were compared with children from 13 divorced heterosexuals. Further, there are contradictions between the published reports regarding the nature of samples and various findings. Analysis of Kirkpatrick, et al.’s study suggests that children do less well when raised by homosexual parents.

References: Psychological Reports, 2005, 96, 397-407.

Child Molestation and Homosexuality

Authors: Paul Cameron, Kay Proctor, William Coburn, Jr., Nels Forde, Helen Larson, and Kirk Cameron

Summary: How much child molestation occurs in our society and how much is homosexual? Random-probability samples in Los Angeles, Denver, Omaha, Louisville, and Washington, DC yielded 4,340 adults who answered an extensive questionnaire regarding sexual attitudes, activities, and experiences. Results indicate that perhaps 16% of both boys and girls claim sexual relations with an adult before the age of 16; if only experiences with men are counted about 5% of boys and 15% of girls claim sexual involvements. Sexual contacts with adults before respondents were aged 13 were claimed by 9% of boys and 7% of girls; if only experiences with men are counted, only 3% of boys claimed molestation. Considering only children’s claims of sex with men, about a third were homosexual molestations. About 1% of females claimed some sexual involvement with their fathers and a alike number with stepfathers. The latter were considerably more apt to be considered “serious.” About 1% of elementary pupils and 3% of secondary pupils claimed sexual advances by  teachers and about a third of these advances resulted in physical sexual contact. Bisexuals or homosexuals claimed much more frequent sexual contact with caretakers, and homosexuality was disproportionately implicated in sexual events under caretakers’ charge. No generational differences in rate of claims of sexual molestation were found.

References: Psychological Reports, 1986, 58, 327-337.

Domestic Violence Among Homosexual Partners

Author: Paul Cameron

Summary: Is domestic violence more frequent in homosexual partnerships? The 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, based upon a random sample of 12,381 adults aged 18 to 59 years, estimated that 828,900 men and 828,678 women engaged in homosexuality in the prior 12 months. Random surveys indicated that at any given time, 29% of homosexual men and 32% of homosexual women are in same-sex partnerships. The National Criminal Victimization Survey for 1993 to 1999 reported that 0.24% of married women and 0.035% of married men were victims of domestic violence annually versus 4.6% of the men and 5.8% of the women reporting same-sex partnerships. Domestic violence appears to be more frequently reported in same-sex partnerships than among the married.

References: Psychological Reports, 2003, 93, 410-416.

Molestations by Homosexual Foster Parents: Newspaper Accounts vs Official Records

Author: Paul Cameron

Summary: To assess whether a systematic tally of newspaper accounts reflects official foster-parent molestation a review o f6,444 news stories on Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe from 1989 through 2002 about child molestation yielded 33 stories involving foster parents. Of the 25 foster-parent perpetrators, at least 15 (60%) engaged in homosexuality. In Illinois 1997-2002, 92 (34%) of 270 foster- or adoptive-parent perpetrators who engaged in “substantiated” sexual abuse homosexually abused their charges. These findings suggest that the proportion of homosexual perpetrators in a systematic tally of newspaper stories is similar to the proportion of homosexual perpetrators in datasets from large entities and put in question the current policy of utilizing homosexuals as foster and adoptive parents.

References: Psychological Reports, 2003, 93, 793-802.

Children of Homosexual Parents Report Childhood Difficulties

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: Referenced as both supporting and weakening the case for parenting by homosexuals, 57 life-story narratives of children with homosexual parents published by Rafkin in 1990 and Saffron in 1996 were subjected to content analysis. Children mentioned one or more problems or concerns in 48 (92%) of 52 families. Of the 213 scored problems, 201 (94%) were attributed to the homosexual parent(s). Older daughters in at least 8 (27%) of 30 families and older sons in at least 2 (20%) of 10 families described themselves as homosexual or bisexual. These findings are inconsistent with propositions that children of homosexuals do not differ appreciably from those who live with married parents or that children of homosexuals are not more apt to engage in homosexuality.

References: Psychological Reports, 2002, 90, 71-82.

What Proportion of Heterosexuals is Ex-Homosexual?

Author: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: How many heterosexuals are ‘ex-homosexuals’? In 1984, a random sample of Dallas adults indicated that 8 (2.7%) of 294 currently heterosexual men and 4 (1.0%) of 393 currently heterosexual women said that they were ex-homosexual. Of an urban sample from 5 additional cities, 0.5% of current heterosexuals reported that they had been homosexually ‘married.’ It thus appears that perhaps 1-2% of heterosexuals are ex-homosexuals. Proportionately more adults than teenagers and more men than women moved from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Of the 18 who changed, 12 became heterosexual and 6 bisexual, suggesting that perhaps two-thirds of those who abandon “being” homosexual ‘become’ heterosexual and a third ‘become’ bisexual. Because labeling oneself ‘homosexual’ is so mutable and value-laden, the term ‘omnisexual’ is suggested.

References: Psychological Reports, 2002, 91, 1087-1097.

Sexual Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease

Author: Paul Cameron, Kay Proctor, William Coburn, Jr., and Nels Forde

Summary: 4,340 adults randomly drawn from five metropolitan areas were questionnaired about their sexual orientation, involvement with unusual sexual practices (e.g., sadomasochism, bondage & discipline), oral/anal sex, number of homo- and heterosexual partners, and sexually transmitted disease (STD) experience. Bi/homosexuals of both genders (4.4% of the sample) reported higher lifetime rates for most of the STDs and admitted to higher rates of deliberate infection of others than their heterosexual counterparts. Stepwise regression analysis indicated that degree of participation in unusual sexual practices, anal/oral contact, age and number of homosexual partners predicted STD experience. Younger adults and homosexuals more frequently reported engaging in both unusual sexual activities, oral/anal contact, and having had STD experience. Homosexuals appear to contribute no less than 15% of the nation’s STDs and probably act as a significant vector in generating additional fractions to the STD pool.

References: Nebraska Medical Journal, 1985, 70(8), 292-299.

Homosexual Parents: Testing “Common Sense” — A Literature Review Emphasizing the Golombok and Tasker Longitudinal Study of Lesbians’ Children

Author: Paul Cameron

Summary: Counter to claims by the American Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers as well as numerous reviewers that children raised by homosexuals and married heterosexuals do not differ, the elaborate social-personality theory called “common sense” predicts that because “like produces like” and because psychopathy/sociopathy informs the major expressions of social deviance including homosexuality, children of homosexuals will (1) be more frequently subjected to parental instability (of residence and sexual partners) and (2) have poorer peer and adult relationships. Also, as is held to be true of their parents, homosexuals’ children will be more apt to (3) become homosexual, (4) be unstable (have emotional problems and difficulty forming lasting bonds) with reduced interest in natility, and (5) be sexually precocious and promiscuous. Differences between homosexual and heterosexual comparison groups that bore on “common sense” were considered suggestive “bits” of empirical evidence. Differences that emerged within studies conducted by sympathetic researchers utilizing volunteer samples were considered bits of adverse evidence. Of 171 bits, 82 adverse and 55 nonadverse bits supported, while 34 bits fell against “common sense.” From this tentative method of counting, support was found for common sense beliefs that children of homosexuals will be more apt to become homosexual and have poorer peer relationships, while weaker support was found for some of the other predictions. As assessed in this way, the empirical evidence in the literature tended to lean against claims of “no differences” between children raised by homosexuals and heterosexuals. In particular, the strongly worded official claims of there being “no differences” are overstatements. They amount to the organizations and some prominent researchers asserting that they have proven the null hypothesis, which is fundamentally impossible. It is likely that the nonsignificant statistical findings stressed thus far include Type II errors created by use of volunteer samples, inadequate identification and measurement of likely differences, and refusal to interpret results in ways contrary to the sympathies of subjects, investigators, and the organizations.

Reference: Cameron P (1999) Homosexual Parents: Testing “common sense” — a literature review emphasizing the Golombok and Tasker longitudinal study of lesbians’ children. Psychological Reports, 85: 282-322.

Homosexual Parents: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: 40 appeals cases of custody disputes drawn systematically from all cases involving a homosexual parent in the United States were compared to 38 appeals cases involving heterosexual custody disputes drawn randomly from listings under parental “character” and 18 appeals cases drawn randomly from “general” cases in Dicennial Digest from 1966 to 1991. Each case involving homosexual vs heterosexual claimants was examined for recorded information about (1) the character of the homosexual parent, the associates of the homosexual parent, the heterosexual parent, and the associates of the heterosexual parent, (2) the effects, particularly harms, upon the child(ren), and (3) psychiatric opinion. 82% of the homosexual vs 18% of the heterosexual parents and 54% of the homosexual’s associates vs 19% of the heterosexual’s associates were recorded as having poor character in cases involving a homosexual claimant. Of the 66 recorded harms, e.g., molestation, physical abuse, to the 73 children, homosexual persons accounted for 64 (97%). Of the 32 lesbians, 6 were recorded as having engaged in criminal activity and 3 of bringing false charges of child sexual abuse against the father. Psychiatric opinion, however, ran 25 to 12 in favor of custody for the homosexual parent. In the 56 heterosexual vs heterosexual comparison cases, 38% of the heterosexual parents and 28% of their associates were recorded as having poor character. Six harms to their 105 children and 3 instances of criminality but no false charges of sexual abuse were recorded. In the appeals court literature, homosexual parents were disproportionately of poor character and disproportionately associated with various harms to their children.

AIDS — Intervention Works; “Education” is Questionable

Authors: Paul Cameron and William L. Playfair

Summary: A decrease in or leveling off of new cases of transfusion-related AIDS coupled with continued increases in homosexual and IV drug cases suggests that intervention by barring contaminated blood has worked and “education” has worked less well, if at all. Current evidence suggests that the blood-bar resulted in change in new AIDS cases among children within 3 years and among adults within 3 1/2 years.

References: Psychological Reports, 1991, 68, 467-470.

Do Homosexual Teachers Account for About Half of News Stories of Molestations of Pupils?

Author: Paul Cameron

Summary: Homosexual interaction was involved in 11 (48%) of 23 and 10 (45%) of 22, that is, about half of two nationwide databases of newspaper stories about teachers’ sexual involvement with pupils reported by Cameron and Cameron in 1998. Whether this relationship holds at a local level was examined by searching all indexed ‘sex crimes’ in the Boston Globe from 1991 through 1998 for local stories about sex between pupil and teacher. Of the 21 teachers in 20 stories, 11 (52%) interacted homosexually with pupils. Thus it appears that nationally and locally, as reported in newspapers, about half of the molestations by teachers are homosexual.

References: Psychological Reports, 2002, 90, 173-174.

Homosexual Parents

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: Does the homosexuality of parents affect the sexual orientation or experiences of their children? Seventeen of 5,182 randomly obtained adults from six U.S. cities answered questionnaires indicating that they had a homosexual parent. Parental homosexuality may be related to findings that: (1) 5 of the 17 reported sexual relations with their parents; (2) a disproportionate fraction reported sexual relations with other caretakers and relatives; and (3) a disproportionate fraction: (a) claimed a less than exclusively heterosexual orientation (47%); (b) indicated gender dissatisfaction; and (c) reeported that their first sexual experience was homosexual. Of 1,388 consecutive obituaries in a major homosexual newspaper, 87 of the gays who died had children and registered a median age of death of 47 (the 1,267 without children had a median age of death of 38); 10 lesbians did and 24 did not have children. We estimate that less than 1% of parents are bisexual or homosexual and that < 7% of gays and about a third of lesbians are parents.

References: Adolescence, 1996, 31(124), 757-776.

“Definitive” University of Chicago Sex Survey Overestimated Prevalence of Homosexual Identity – Thursday, February 02, 2006

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: The 1994 University of Chicago “definitive” survey of adults estimated prevalence of homosexuality among males at 2.8% and among females at 1.4%. Corrected for the exclusion of those over the age of 59 years, the estimates should be 2.3% and 1.2%.

References: Psychological Reports, 1998, 82, 861-862.

Did the APA Misrepresent the Scientific Literature to Courts in Support of Homosexual Custody?

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: In 1994, American Psychological Association amicus briefs informed two state Supreme Courts that (a) homosexual parents are not more apt to have homosexual children; (b) lesbians “score significantly higher than heterosexual parents” on a measure of parental effectiveness; and (c) no differences between the children raised by homosexuals and nonhomosexuals had been found “regardless of the geographic region within the United States where the children were raised.” In fact, the evidence from these briefs  shows to the contrary that (a) homosexual parents are more apt to have homosexual children; (b) the findings on parental effectiveness consisted of 15 fathers being less verbal than 45 mothers; and (c) the finding of no differences between homosexually and heterosexually raised children consisted of investigators visiting 11 states to test 89 offspring of 83 lesbian vs. 81 children of 69 nonlesbian volunteers. The APA’s support for gay rights in these briefs may have violated its own ethical principles that “psychologists base their statements on scientifically acceptable psychological findings and techniques with full recognition of the limits and uncertainties of such evidence” and that psychologists must “provide thorough discussion of the limitations of their data, especially where their work touches upon social policy” (APA, 1981).

References: The Journal of Psychology, 1997, 131(3), 313-332.

The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic

Authors: Paul Cameron, William L Playfair, and Stephen Wellum

Summary: Although the U.S. Surgeon General characterized homosexual sex as “normal” and “healthy,” homosexuals and IV drug abusers have suffered disproportionately from the AIDS epidemic. Longevity is often utilized as a measure of health. How long did homosexuals live before the AIDS epidemic and how long do they live today? We examined 6,737 obituaries/death notices from eighteen U.S. homosexual journals over the past thirteen years and compared them to obituaries from two conventional newspapers. The obituaries from the non-homosexual newspapers were similar to U.S. averages for longevity: the median age of death of married men was seventy-five, 80 percent died old (65 or older); for unmarried men it was fifty-seven, 32 percent died old; for married women it was seventy-nine, 85 percent died old; for unmarried women it was seventy-one, 60 percent died old. For the 6,574 homosexual deaths, the median age of death if AIDS was the cause was thirty-nine irrespective of whether or not the individual had a Long Time Sexual Partner [LTSP], 1 percent died old. For those 829 who died of non-AIDS causes the median age of death was forty-two (41 for those 315 with a LTSP and 43 for those 514 without) and <9 percent died old. Homosexuals more frequently met a violent end from accidental death, traffic death, suicide, and murder than men in general. The 163 lesbians registered a median age of death of forty-four (20% died old) and exhibited high rates of violent death and cancer as compared to women in general. Old homosexuals appear to have been proportionately less numerous than their non-homosexual counterparts in the scientific literature from 1858 to 1993. The pattern of early death evident in the homosexual obituaries is consistent with the pattern exhibited in the published surveys of homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers. Homosexuals may have experienced a short lifespan for the last 140 years; AIDS has apparently reduced it about 10 percent. Such an abbreviated lifespan puts the healthfulness of homosexuality in question. Reference: Cameron P, Playfair WL, & Wellum S (1994) The longevity of homosexuals: before and after the AIDS epidemic. Omega Journal of Death and Dying, 29(3): 249-272.

Homosexuals in the Armed Forces

Authors: Paul Cameron, Kirk Cameron, and Kay Proctor

Summary: To assess possible morale and recruiting problems that might be associated with changing the military policy against admitting or retaining homosexual practitioners, a national systematic area-cluster sample of 4,340 adults and a Dallas sample of 842 were given a questionnaire concerning (1) feelings about nudity before homosexuals and heterosexuals, (2) military service and kind of discharge, (3) sharing communal facilities with homosexuals, (4) having a homosexual commanding officer, (5) having to depend upon a homosexual while under attack, (6) whether a change in policy would affect advice regarding joining the military, and (7) their opinion of current military policy. Consistent with other studies on the issue, 31% of homosexual versus 4% of heterosexual men reported less than honorable discharges. About three-quarters of the sample reported that, when disrobed, they were averse to being seen by homosexuals. About two-thirds of the men who had served, a majority of men who had not served, about a third of the women, and a minority of homosexuals felt that homosexuals should be excluded from or discharged from the military.

References: Psychological Reports, 1988, 62, 211-219.

Gay Obituaries Closely Track Officially Reported Deaths from AIDS

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: The age distribution of AIDS deaths of males who have sex with males [MSM] was estimated from obituaries in the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper. Statistics from the 2003 HIV/AIDS Surveillance Supplemental Report are highly congruent with deaths of MSM due to AIDS from these obituaries. Death due to AIDS in old age was most frequent for heterosexuals and least frequent for MSM who were drug abusers. Obituaries in the Washington Blade are thus consistent with and may be representative of deaths due to AIDS among MSM. The latest CDC report tends to strengthen the overall finding based upon obituaries: that the lifespan of MSM is shortened two to three decades by AIDS and, possibly, other causes.

References: Psychological Reports, 2005, 96, 693-697.

Do Homosexual Teachers Pose a Risk to Pupils?

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: Questionnaires were completed by 5,182 adults derived from one-wave area cluster samples in 6 metropolitan areas: 56% of homosexuals and 18% of heterosexuals reported having had a homosexual teacher; 12% of the men and 4% of the women said that the teacher made sexual advances toward them. A fifth of those with a homosexual teacher said they were influenced to regard homosexuality as socially acceptable; 4% said that the teacher influenced them to try homosexuality. About 1% of the sample reported that, as pupils, they had sexual relations with at least one of their elementary or secondary teachers. Eight respondents reported their first sexual experience was with an elementary or secondary teacher and that one of these experiences was homosexual. Of 49 other reported sexual experiences with teachers, 12 were homosexual. The findings that homosexuals more frequently claimed to have had homosexual teachers and more frequently reported homosexual sex with teachers tend to fit the contagion model of homosexuality — that homosexuality is taught by or caught by sexual interaction with homosexual practitioners.

References: The Journal of Psychology, 1996, 130(6), 603-613.

Reply to Hauck, et al. Concerning Nonsexual Household Transmission of HIV in Zaire

Author: Kirk Cameron

Summary: CDC researchers mishandle statistical evidence and overstate case against casual transmission of HIV. Reassessment by Hauck, et al. is statistically inappropriate.

References: Psychological Reports, 1990, 66, 329-330.

What Proportion of Newspaper Stories About Child Molestation Involves Homosexuality?

Authors: Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron

Summary: Do homosexuals disproportionately molest children? A survey of 8 of the nation’s newspaper news stories of child molestation during the first 9 months of 1995 showed that about 40% of child molestation stories in the major cities involve homosexuality. An Internet survey of FirstSearch for 1989 through 1995 indicated 46%, and of Newsbank for 1990 through 1995 60% of molestations were homosexual. About half of teachers, day care workers and other professionals caught molesting children assaulted them homosexually. It is argued that large unbiased sets of newspaper news stories appear to approximate the figures for incidence of child molestation by those occupying a newsworthy status but overreport homosexual molestation in general.

References: Psychological Reports, 1998, 82, 863-871.

Child Molestations by Homosexual Foster Parents: Illinois, 1997-2002

Author: Paul Cameron

Summary: Do those who engage in homosexuality disproportionately sexually abuse foster or adoptive children as reported by child protective services? Illinois child services reported sexual abuse for 1997 through 2002. 270 parents committed “substantiated”  sexual offenses against foster or subsidized adoptive children: 67 (69%) of 97 of these mother and 148 (86%) of 173 of these father perpertrators sexually abused girls; 30 (31%) of the mothers and 25 (14%) of the father perpetrators sexually abused boys, i.e., 92 (34%) of the perpetrators homosexually abused their charges. Of these parents 15 both physically and sexually abused charges: daughters by 8 of the mothers and 4 of the fathers, sons by 3 of the mothers, i.e., same-sex perpetrators were involved in 53%. Thus, homosexual practitioners were proportionately more apt to abuse foster or adoptive children sexually.

References: Psychological Reports, 2005, 96, 227-230.

Numbers of Homosexual Parents Living with Their Children

Author: Paul Cameron

Summary: Those contending for the ‘normalcy’ of homosexuality claim there are 800,000 to 7 million homosexual parents raising between 1 and 9 million children. The 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, a nationally representative sample of 12,321 ages 18 through 59 yr., reported about 416,000 parents — most of whom were married — living with children under the age of 17 yr. who reported same-sex “vaginal, oral, or anal sex” in the past 12 months. Two random-sample surveys suggested that there are fewer than half a million homosexual parents, and a total sample of 14,000 mothers in Avon suggests even fewer. Thus, it is likely that fewer than 500,000 homosexual parents live with fewer than 750,000 children under 18 yr.

Reference: Cameron P (2004) Numbers of homosexual parents living with their children. Psychological Reports, 94: 179-188.

Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life?

Authors: Paul Cameron, Kirk Cameron, and William L. Playfair

Summary: Previous estimates from obituaries and pre-1994 sex surveys suggested that the median age of death for homosexuals is less than 50 yr. Four contemporary databases were used to test that estimate: (1) obituaries in the homosexual press from 1993 through 1997 reflected treatment success for those with AIDS but suggested a median age of death less than 50 years; (2) two large random sexuality surveys in 1994 — one in the USA and the other in Britain — yielded results consistent with a median age of death for homosexuals of less then 50 years; (3) the median age of those ever married in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway was about 50 years, while that of the ever homosexually partnered was about 40 yr.; further, the married were about 5 times more apt to be old and 4 times less apt to be widowed young; and (4) intravenous drug abusers and homosexuals taking HIV tests in Colorado had almost identical age distributions. The four lines of evidence were consistent with previous findings suggesting that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years.

References: Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, 847-866.

Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, and Smith’s Study of 50 Lesbian Mothers and Their Children

Authors: Paul Cameron, Kirk Cameron, and Thomas Landess

Summary: The 1986 study of 50 lesbian mothers by Green, et al. may be the most influential concerning homosexual parenting. However, after setting standards for — and noting preliminary evidence of — gender identity confusion in 1980 and 1982, confirmatory findings in 1986 were not included in the report’s abstract and conclusions. Numerous discrepancies in different published accounts of this study — including number of subjects and how subjects were matched and analyzed — cannot be reconciled. The earliest reports were not cited in the final report which led to treatment in the literature as separate studies. The inconsistencies between the published accounts are substantive and numerous enough to recommend that the authors issue a complete and detailed report of the study.

References: Psychological Reports, 2001, 88, 1223-1234.

Errors by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association…

Authors: Paul Cameron, Kirk Cameron, and Thomas Landess

Summary: In October 1995, consortiums of psychiatric and educational professional organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association and the National Educational Association, submitted amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court asserting that the scientific literature unequivocally supports the following propositions: (a) that homosexuals, including homosexual teachers, do not disproportionately molest children, (b) that children of homosexual parents are not more likely to become homosexuals, (c) that professionals agree that homosexuality is not a pathology, and (d) that homosexual attractions are biologically or genetically predetermined and are therefore beyond the control of the individual. The first two contentions are inconsistent with the scientific literature, and the second two grossly oversimplify a contentious and uncertain literature.

References: Psychological Reports, 1996, 79, 383-404.

Homosexual Sex as Harmful as Drug Abuse, Prostitution, or Smoking

Authors: Paul Cameron, Thomass Landess, and Kirk Cameron

Summary: In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court said same-sex sexual activity could not be prohibited by law. Analyzing data from the 1996 National Household Survey of Drug Abuse (N = 12,381) and comparing those who engaged in four recreational activities — homosexual sex, illegal drug use, participation in prostitution, and smoking — against those who abstained, participants (1) were more frequently disruptive (e.g., more frequently criminal, drove under the influence of drugs or alcohol, used illegal drugs, took sexual risks), (2) were less frequently productive (e.g., less frequently had children in marriage, more frequently missed work), and (3) generated excessive costs (e.g., more promiscuous, higher consumers of medical services). Major sexuality surveys have reported similar findings for homosexuals. Societal discrimination inadequately accounts for these differences since parallel comparisons of black and white subsamples produced a pattern unlike the differences found between homosexuals and nonhomosexuals.

Reference: Psychological Reports, 2005, 96, 915-961

Can Anything Be Done to Stop Gay Rights?


The West has produced the richest and most vital civilization ever to grace the planet, but our civilization is dying by slow degrees. Western nations are producing too few children to maintain their population. Most of our demographic decline is due to a mix of a self-centered reluctance to have children, birth control, wholesale abortion, and women in the workplace. The rise of militant homosexuality has also been a significant factor. It is both a symptom and a cause of our decline.

On one hand, the growing acceptance of homosexuality is symptomatic of a larger trend in Western society — the growing view of sexuality as “mere recreation,” a casual activity divorced from procreation and family. Gay rights is also a cause of civilization’s decline. Homosexuality is a unique manifestation of hedonism. Instead of producing children, it preys on them. Instead of keeping to itself, it proselytizes. Instead of promoting health and stability (as does marriage), it thrives on aggression, spreads disease, and destroys its practitioners, emotionally and physically.

Along with the promotion of birth control and abortion, the present bland acceptance of homosexuality signals the end of the religious and moral vision that made Western civilization coherent and functional. We had a forewarning of this social collapse in Germany following that nation’s defeat in World War I. During the Weimar Republic, homosexuality was acceptable and consequently rampant. The popular culture celebrated perversity. Kurt Weill’s songs portrayed pleasure-seeking men moving from one homosexual encounter to another. The first gay rights film, “Different From The Others,” appeared in Germany in 1919. This period of moral chaos spawned National Socialism and the rise to power of its sexually twisted leader, Adolph Hitler.

The United States is not the Germany of the Weimar Republic, but we are now telling our children in junior high school and even elementary school that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative to traditional marriage. More and more of them are encouraged to consider such behavior. High school counselors in Virginia express concern that perversion has become so chic that young heterosexuals are pretending to be bisexual and even homosexual. The so-called gay rights movement is making certain that the next generation of Americans will be more and more tolerant of this self-indulgent and dangerous behavior, and even more likely to become addicted.

One thing seems clear: If the acceptance and practice of homosexuality continues at its current rate, Western civilization will not survive.

So we ask again: Can anything be done to stop gay rights?

Good News, Bad News

At first glance, the answer would appear to be ‘yes.’ Eleven states in the November 2004 election passed referenda banning gay ‘marriage’ in one form or another. Another nine states since then have made similar changes to their laws or constitutions. Pro-family conservatives have been credited with helping to get out the vote on this and other moral issues, aiding President Bush’s re-election and keeping gay-sympathetic Democrats both 1) out of office and 2) incapable of tilting the make-up of the Supreme Court further leftward. Liberals were unable to stop the confirmations of new, conservative Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Altogether, 45 states have passed either Defense of Marriage legislation or marriage amendments to their constitutions. And President Bush supports a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, with the purpose of enshrining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

On the other hand, a penetrating look provides reason for pessimism. Within the past ten years, the current Supreme Court has 1) overturned Amendment 2 in Colorado, a majority-passed referendum designed to limit the spread of gay rights by administrative or judicial fiat; and 2) overturned all laws against sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas, establishing a presumptive ‘right’ to sodomy across America. The State of Vermont enacted the first gay civil unions, followed by Connecticut and New Jersey, the State of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage, California established homosexual domestic partnerships only a year after its citizens, by referendum, reserved the name of ‘marriage’ for unions of one man-one-woman, and citizens in Maine and Washington failed to overturn new state-wide gay rights laws.

In an ominous parallel to its official decision to de-list homosexuality as a mental disorder back in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, in 2005, officially endorsed gay marriage as a healthier alternative to gay ‘bachelorhood.’

On the political front, President Bush and many Republican leaders have clearly stated their support for homosexual civil unions, if states so desire them. The Bush administration also ignored the opportunity to defend anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence v. Texas. And international pressure is growing. In addition to the European countries that have now legalized either gay marriage or a close equivalent, and the fact that the proposed constitution of the European Union codifies sexual orientation as a protected status, the Canadian Supreme Court has overturned laws against gay marriage (with the Canadian government acquiescing to the decision and legalizing gay marriage in Parliament) and ruled that almost any criticism of homosexuality is a form of ‘hate speech.’ Strongly Catholic Ireland banned sodomy until 1993, but now has apparently decided that some form of gay civil unions must be adopted in the near future. And so it goes.

In the U.S., traditional Christian thought has been so pushed out of the public square that Christian condemnation of homosexuality is either ignored or explicitly pilloried. Meanwhile, support for gays continues to grow among the elite. The editorial page commentary of the Wall Street Journal about former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey’s revelation of his homosexual preference illustrates the depth of this support:

“the real scandal consuming New Jersey isn’t governor James McGreevey’s sexual preference. It’s how Mr. McGreevy and fellow state Democrats are timing his resignation to cheat voters out of picking a replacement as soon as possible.

“Obviously, being gay today isn’t something that a politician need apologize for or be ashamed of. What’s shameful is the way Mr. McGreevey is manipulating the political calendar.” (August 16, 2004, A12)

As the editors of the most influential newspaper in the world see it, that the governor of New Jersey engaged in sodomy, cheated on his wife and child, hired an unqualified lover, engaged in misappropriation of funds, lied to the electorate, etc. — in short, acted in ways consonant with a Christian analysis of what sodomites do — is irrelevant. McGreevey’s sin is political, period. Today, even conservative commentators (such as Bill O’Riley or Michael Medved) usually opine that condemnation of homosexuality is ‘backward’ or ‘bigoted.’

How We Got Here

Though this transformation to a gay-friendly world may seem to have happened almost overnight, history shows otherwise. As former Harvard sociologist and chairman Pitirim Sorokin documented in the 1950s, the sexual revolution was brewing for at least the prior 100 years. Over that time, birth rates and average family sizes steadily dropped, divorce rates and out-of-wedlock births steadily rose, and taboos and strictures against cohabitation, promiscuity, and homosexuality began to fall by the wayside. These trends have continued and generally accelerated since Sorokin’s analysis.

An excellent — but by no means isolated — example of the long-term decline is provided by the District of Columbia. When the District was established in 1790, sodomy was a capital crime. Today, homosexuals have more legal rights in D.C. than non-homosexuals. Socially, gays wield significant power, so much so that serious negotiations were needed to site a new baseball stadium at a location occupied by a popular gay bar.

Despite some recent political setbacks on the issue of marriage, homosexual activists have had much to celebrate of late. Homosexual activity is on the verge of surpassing its place in the Greco-Roman world. Sodomy has been accorded the status of a civil right, the courts and most lawyers are highly sympathetic to the gay movement, and our educational institutions are doing much to change the mindset of our young to a more accepting posture. In addition, these activists know that political fancies can easily change. Large majorities are today opposed to gay marriage. But it wasn’t very many years ago that similar majorities were opposed to gay teachers, homosexual politicians, and anti-discrimination clauses based on sexual orientation. All those majorities have shrunk if not disappeared over the past 20 to 30 years. Who is to say that marriage will not follow suit?

A Strategic Plan That Worked

In the late 1950s, though comprising only 2% of the adult population, homosexual activists strategized to cancel the influence of Christianity. At that time, the Christian Church in the U.S. claimed the allegiance of about two-thirds of the population, and was strongly supported by at least 20% of adults. The financial resources of gay activists were modest — they probably had no more than $100,000 to expend. The Church had billions of dollars and dozens of institutions of higher education. What strategy could they employ?

Those early homosexuals targeted ‘science.’ They correctly figured it would be tough sledding if they tried to change Christianity from within. But by capturing the professions and thereby science, the gay movement could trump Christianity. They knew that religious professionals — intimidated by the complexity of science and awed by its influence and accomplishments -— would eventually go along with them.

The same strategy had garnered considerable success in Germany, until Hitler turned against the homosexuals. By doing ‘scientific work’ at the world’s first ‘sexuality institute,’ homosexual activists had gotten a number of scientists to sign on to their cause — even Albert Einstein. Gay leaders started publishing their own scientific journal, the Journal of Homosexuality. They also won influence by publishing in academic journals and getting seats on the boards of major social service and social science professional associations.

Capturing ‘science’ was the key to this plan. Christianity, along with the Bible and tradition, would be trumped — so they believed — if science favored the homosexuals. However, there was also a risk. If the Church, with its considerably larger resources, fought back to control and influence science, the gay movement would be in trouble. Unfortunately, the Church did not wage battle on the scientific turf; in fact, it generally dismissed science as inferior to
theology — ‘the queen of sciences.’

That lost opportunity now ‘sticks in the Christian craw.’ The Church today finds itself on the down side of having relinquished science about homosexuality to the homosexuals. Many denominations have substituted the authority of that science for their traditions and the Bible — witness the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, and the Church of Christ. Others are barely staving off capitulation, including the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Methodists, and the Presbyterians.

Rightly concerned about these changes, many in the Evangelical wing of Christianity have chosen to either 1) snipe at pro-homosexual scientific findings, 2) support political action against the gay movement, and/or 3) adopt the neo-Freudian notion that homosexuals can be ‘cured’ with certain kinds of therapy, as evident in the ‘ex-gay’ movement.

Unfortunately, quibbling about various studies without advancing solid, systematic counter-evidence does little to discredit them (very little in the gay rights debate has changed despite the Evangelical uproar over Alfred Kinsey, for instance). In the long run, trust and investment in the scientific enterprise run so deep that few politicians are going to disregard ‘science’ to please Christians. And even if the ex-gay movement can claim some success, its converts are but a drop in the homosexual bucket.

In a word, if we keep doing what we have been doing, the Church will likely lose its tax-exempt status, its freedom of speech regarding homosexuality will be curbed, and Christians will be criticized from every quarter. Most homosexuals are fixated, addicted to their sexual desires, and compulsive. Gay activists are not content to let the Christians continue to preach against homosexuality. They want to smash the Church and its influence to smithereens, or else transform it into something that no longer resembles historic Christianity.

So the question remains: can anything be done to reverse the tide of gay rights? We believe there is, but it won’t be easy. And it won’t get done using the strategies championed currently by most pro-family conservatives. In fact, it will require a significant change in thinking and attack — what we would call a paradigm shift.

Paradigm Shifts

When Christianity came on the scene, homosexual activity was present and quasi-accepted in the Greco-Roman world. Though the daily activities of those who engaged in homosexuality are poorly known, it appears that there were homosexual prostitutes at various temples, some teachers engaged in homosexual relations with their pupils, and a certain amount of homosexual activity occurred throughout society, often in the larger cities.

Christianity advanced a new paradigm against homosexual behavior: the word of God. Homosexuality was not part of appropriate religious celebrations nor in any way a good, because God despised it. Indeed, God had destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of it, and might well destroy the Roman Empire if it did not eliminate it. In light of this sacred truth, and as a chosen sin, homosexuality deserved punishment.

It took 300 years for the Christian paradigm to triumph and express itself in social policy. A law punishing homosexual activity with death appeared in A.D. 342. About 50 years later, the emperors Valentinian II, Theodosious, and Arcadius decreed that “All persons who have the shameful custom of condemning a man’s body, acting the part of a woman’s… shall expiate this sort of crime in avenging flames.” Under Emperor Justinian (c. 527-565), the Christian paradigm was explicitly stated: “We admonish men to abstain from the aforesaid unlawful acts, that they may not lose their souls… so that the city and the state may not come to harm by reason of such wicked deeds.”

Following in the steps of Roman Law several centuries later, England punished homosexual activity severely, as did the American colonies, as did the states. But over time, the Christian truths about God’s hatred of homosexual activity, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc., diminished in the law. As well, punishments for same-sex activity declined in severity — from death to imprisonment to fines. Yet the Christian belief that ‘homosexual activity is a sinful choice’ remained firmly entrenched through the 1800s.

Toward the end of the 19th and beginnings of the 20th century, the nascent field of psychiatry championed a new paradigm. According to its worldview, those who engaged in homosexuality had a ‘condition’ that made them ‘ill,’ and should be ‘treated’ rather than punished. The condition of ‘being a homosexual’ was not their choice, but stemmed from childhood circumstances, biology, or some combination of the two.

Psychiatry advertised itself as ‘enlightened’ and ‘scientific,’ and over time it garnered a great deal of attention and respect. Some of this was due to self-promotion, but it also resulted from science becoming accepted as more ‘real’ or ‘substantial’ than claims of faith. Psychiatrists dealt with odd people and produced testimonies from those whom they ‘treated.’ Psychiatrists also began to search for biologic or specific environmental causes of homosexuality, further anchoring such behavior in the realm of science rather than faith or morality.

In addition, some found psychiatry’s theory about the ‘condition’ of homosexuality exceptionally satisfying. This theory, after all, had a very important ramification: it’s not your fault… your parents or your hormones or your genes, etc., drove you to do this… this is part of your ‘condition.’ Psychiatric ‘science’ had proven that ‘homosexuals’ had to ‘sin’ — and no just God (or society) could condemn activity that was ‘natural’ or so ingrained from childhood.

By the 1930s, the psychiatric paradigm began competing with and replacing the Christian paradigm — particularly in Europe. Many within the Church aspired to be ‘enlightened’ when it came to homosexuality, and either melded the Christian and the psychiatric viewpoints or simply adopted the psychiatric, instead of the Christian, worldview. Later psychologists and researchers such as Alfred Kinsey continued to cement discussion of homosexuality within a scientific context, purportedly showing that many people engaged in homosexual behavior with little if any ill effect, or that comparisons between homosexuals and non-homosexuals showed few if any differences in personality or social functioning. While those pushing the psychiatric perspective espoused conflicting theories about the root causes of this behavior, the general thrust was to describe homosexuals as ‘distinct’ or ‘different’ because of their condition, but not in any sense inferior to ‘normal’ people.

In 1962, following psychiatric thinking, Illinois legalized homosexual activity, and other states followed. In the 1970s, psychiatry officially decided that homosexuality was just another variant of ‘normal,’ and those portions of the Church that had adopted the psychiatric viewpoint shifted in agreement. Almost no one now questioned the psychiatric prognosis that homosexuals were a ‘different kind of animal;’ even among Evangelical Christians, homosexuals were just so ‘strange’ and ‘different’ that they must be ‘ill’ or in need of ‘treatment.’ Surely, they would not simply ‘choose’ to do these odd things. Even Kinsey’s explicit attempts to show that homosexuality was not linked to one’s biology and that everyone was capable of homosexual behavior had fallen by the wayside.

The Last Stand

The last major legal decision affirming the historic Christian paradigm that homosexual behavior is a ‘choice’ occurred in 1984, when the 5th Circuit overturned en banc Federal Judge Buchmeyer’s earlier decision that the Texas sodomy law violated the U.S. Constitution (Baker v. Wade, 1984). Judge Thomas Reavley, writing for the majority in the overturn of Buchmeyer, held that the right to privacy did not include a right to engage in sodomy and that homosexuals could not claim the need for ‘equal protection’ because homosexuality had never been held to be a suspect classification. Reavley said the court rejected the equal protection argument because the law was “directed at certain conduct, not at a class of people. Though the conduct be the desire of the bisexually or homosexually inclined, there is no necessity that they engage in it. The statute affects only those who choose to act in the manner prescribed.”

Because there was “no necessity that they [homosexuals] engage in it,” the 5th Circuit explicitly affirmed what Christians had traditionally claimed by faith: homosexual activity, like other sexual activities, was voluntary. But nineteen years later, in 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas, namely because “homosexuals” had to engage in sodomy, it was part of their “nature.” The psychiatric worldview had now thus triumphed over the historic Christian worldview in every area, including American jurisprudence — it apparently was necessary that homosexuals have sex with each other.

Today, academia, the media, and much of the mainline Church have adopted the psychiatric worldview. Much of the rest — including significant elements of the Evangelical wing — is either verging on it, or is melding psychiatric and Christian concepts together. Many evangelical leaders will assert, for instance, that homosexuality is not a choice per se, but something ingrained or developed at an early age. It may be ‘treatable,’ but is not entirely voluntary. Similarly, Roman Catholicism explicitly recognizes the ‘condition’ of ‘being’ a homosexual.

So while many Christians today may claim that the Bible is their guide when it comes to homosexuality, the reality is somewhat different. A religious paradigm based on sacred faith and the revealed word of God dominated for 1500 years. While vestiges of it clearly remain, after an 100 year campaign, the psychiatric paradigm is currently ‘in charge,’ especially after the ‘blitzkrieg’ and capture by gay activists of the science of homosexuality over the last 50-plus years. This is the dilemma conservatives and Christians alike now face.

What is Needed Now

What is needed is a new paradigm. The religious paradigm focused on man’s obedience to God and the danger to society if His will was disregarded. It was based on a faith in an omnipotent and all-knowing God who actively moved in human society. The psychiatric paradigm focused instead on the psychological ‘needs’ or ‘conditions’ of the individual. It was grounded, supposedly, on science and what scientists could observe about the nature of human behavior. Certainly a general faith in science (of all types, not just behavioral science) is clearly predominant today, especially with the obvious advances that science and technology have wrought over the last century.

To displace it, the new paradigm must also be grounded in science. But instead of the needs of the individual or their suffering as ‘victims of society’ (as gays dying of AIDS have been characterized), it would emphasize the needs of society and the recreational (choice-driven) nature of personal sexual desires. Center stage under the new paradigm would be the wealth of scientific facts that are currently neglected or suppressed: facts such as the high cost of AIDS to society or the more frequent molestation of children by homosexual practitioners, to mention only two.

The bottom line is that the Christian assault on homosexuality is waning. In the face of purportedly ‘unassailable’ science, and with parishioners adopting more and more elements of the psychiatric, individual-focused mindset, the Church is being pressured to abandon its historic stance against homosexual activity and to accept ‘homosexuals’ into its ranks. In America, the Church is on track to lose its tax-exempt status if it fails to do so. Current efforts are not working and cannot hope for anything but temporary future success.

Fortunately, as the history of homosexuality shows, no state of affairs is immune to change. However, much like Christianity’s success against Greco-Roman acceptance of homosexuality, and the success of psychiatry against Christianity, a new paradigm is indeed crucial — a paradigm backed by empirical facts. The evidence supporting the new paradigm will have to be used to batter down the now-dominant psychiatric paradigm. It will have to incorporate the key elements of the old Christian worldview, but support those elements with scientific buttressing. And, because the threat to the Church and society is so great, time is of the essence.

This new paradigm demands a change in mindset, one of the most difficult of human endeavors. Similar to the launch of conservative advocacy foundations such as the John M. Olin Foundation, it will take significant organization and the application of new monies. The example of the way many conservative organizations were created is instructive. Irving Kristol and William Simon argued in the 1970s that liberals were advancing economically because they dominated the nation’s intellectual discourse.

As James Piereson, executive director of the John M. Olin Foundation, recalled in the Wall Street Journal (July 21, 2004):

“Conservative philanthropists should underwrite their own ‘counter intelligentsia’ that would support scholars who were oriented in favor of liberty rather than against it.… [they] understood that a defense of capitalism required also a defense of the deeper cultural assumptions that gave meaning and order to a commercial civilization. Free markets could not be defended without reference to the rule of law, religion, the family and the evolution of our political institutions. This task required a full-blown engagement with the world of ideas — a world traditionally dominated by the left. They understood also that they were swimming against the intellectual tide in the 1970s, when the future seemed to point in the direction of an ever-expanding welfare state.

“Liberal foundations (e.g., Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie) had dominated funding of advocacy groups — all of which were liberal. Responding to the Kristol-Simon call, new conservative foundations were created. Over time, they got enough of a toehold to influence political events and began to sway the intellectual discourse on capitalism.”

This same kind of effort is needed today with gay rights. One or more new foundations must be established to fund discourse and scientific research in that area where most Christians and pro-family advocates have had little to offer other than the convictions of their faith. The new paradigm must be advanced and supported in an organized, systematic way. Science must be used to buttress the Christian worldview and to counter the faulty, misguided ‘science’ of psychiatry and gay-sympathetic academicians.

We can no longer rely — as almost all pro-family organizations do today — on gleaning scientific ‘bits’ from those in liberal academia who already operate under the psychiatric worldview umbrella, and who often secretly question Christianity, if they are not overtly hostile. We must fund primary, basic research by those scientists committed to the historic Christian mindset, then publicize and showcase that research, and finally use it to influence and change legislative and public policy. In short, we must subvert the academy by doing original, honest research ourselves and use this to advance the historic Christian faith in a brand new way.

Key Propositions of the New Paradigm

Any new paradigm requires a new way of thinking. Our culture has become so steeped in an individualistic, psychiatric view of sex that a change of viewpoint will not be easy. Historic Christianity viewed sex as a gift from God to man, but it was proscribed in ways that attempted to ensure that sex was used for the good of society, first and foremost. Such a practice has well-served Christendom through history. Even more important today, the traditional Christian handling of sex is supported by an array of scientific and empirical facts. We should therefore boldly proclaim and highlight the following propositions, knowing that God’s truth is evident whenever honest science is conducted.

1) Reproductive Sex Is Necessary, But Personal Sexual Experience Is Not

Only a modest amount of sex between men and women is necessary for social functioning. Some is needed to produce children and, beyond that, to 1) keep married parents together for the rearing of their brood, and 2) build loyalties assuring that society will not have to care for the parents while at least one spouse is able to do so.

From society’s perspective, non-marital sexual activities are either non-productive or harmful. Except for ‘producers’ and ‘nurturers’ of children, other sex is recreational. Indeed, since non-marital sex often results in problematic pregnancies or contributes to the spreading of disease, it is best repressed. Homosexual activity is an exceptionally costly and dangerous sexual entertainment, even as private masturbation is non-productive.

Unlike our needs for food, clothing, and shelter, no one has to have sex. While you may prefer it, no one dies without it. Not everybody enjoys sex, but for the vast majority who do, sex with other(s) is not a necessity but an important recreation.

Part of the reason the Christian paradigm fell before that of psychiatry is that Christianity’s contentions were based on faith — in God, the reality of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Church’s interpretations of Scripture. To counter this, psychiatrists could produce real people who told ‘tales of suffering’ alleviated by the new-fangled ‘counseling’ they received. Psychiatry, particularly Freudianism, also made sexuality central to personal and social development. And it gained important cachet by describing its theories in scientific-sounding language.

In part, the psychiatric trumped the religious paradigm because it could display scientific ‘facts’ about how sexuality ‘worked’ in humans, while religion made no such showing. Additionally, psychiatry elevated sexuality to that of a ‘need’ and sexual experiences as central to a host of personal attributes and goals. But it need not be so.

2) The Psychiatric Paradigm About Homosexuality Has Been Oversold and the Costs Have Largely Been Ignored

While some individuals undoubtedly ‘suffered’ because society actively repressed non-marital sex — and homosexual sex in particular — our collective life is not ‘better’ because those with homosexual desires have been permitted to ‘do their thing.’ Indeed, about 1% of the U.S. gross domestic product [GDP] is being spent to contain and treat HIV — a disease, as Cuba demonstrated, that could have been largely ‘halted in its tracks’ if the ‘gay community’ had not been coddled by U.S. public health officials.

The future for our children is increasingly uncertain. As first documented by Professor Sorokin, Europe is well on the way toward a demographic decline, and the U.S. is not far behind. Instead of making our collective life better, ‘freeing up sexuality’ has resulted in fewer children overall and an ever-smaller proportion of children born to married

3) The Psychiatric Claim That Homosexuality Is ‘Just As Normal’ As Heterosexuality Rests On Many Lies, Distortions, and Exaggerations

Although psychiatrists and mental health experts claim that science informs their positions, a great deal of that science can be proven faulty, overstated, misrepresented, or sometimes fraudulent. Clearly, one key to grounding the new paradigm in scientific fact is to demonstrate by honest science when the ‘facts’ and ‘empirical claims’ of the psychiatric paradigm are either not true or have been misrepresented.

In sharp contrast to what psychiatry has claimed — just to list a few examples — children do not do as well when reared by homosexuals, unions of homosexuals are not the same as the commitment of man-woman marriage, homosexuals are more apt to molest children, homosexual sex is more biologically dangerous than heterosexual sex, the proportion of those with homosexual desires is not constant, HIV does not endanger everyone, quarantine works, and people can and do change their sexual preferences.

While the psychiatric paradigm made strides by elevating science over religious faith, the new paradigm should gain from telling the empirical truth about the psychiatric paradigm’s lies, distortions, and exaggerations, but without engaging in lies, distortions, or exaggerations of its own. Importantly, good and careful scientific critique will require the services of true, highly-trained scientists. Science should also be used to promote, on the tip of every spear, an historic Christian view of ‘public health’ and ‘good social order.’ And it should document the empirical danger and absurdity of building a civilization around the sexual recreations of its members.

4) The Psychiatric Paradigm Is Too Narrow

Adapting society to the interests of individuals who want to have same-sex sex will ultimately choke our social engine. Forcing the majority to accommodate the desires of the few is fundamentally unjust and unworkable. Any number of people want all kinds of sexual things, whether it be sex with the underage, surgically changing their gender, wanting to marry their siblings, desiring multiple spouses, etc. Ceding the right to ‘homosexuals’ to ‘do their thing’ but not to other ‘sexual minorities’ is inherently ‘unfair,’ and bound to open Pandora’s box.

Furthermore, social functioning, rather than accommodating individual sexual tastes, needs to be the centerpiece. A lot of sexual activity is capricious — people, including ‘homosexuals,’ change their sexual (and other) tastes all the time. What begins as recreation or entertainment can often ‘get the best of us’ — consider addictions to drugs, gambling, and all sorts of sexual fixations. The whimsical nature of sex leads people to acquire odd sexual tastes and interests; the compulsive nature of sex often cements them to those tastes and interests. The important concern is how those desires affect society.

Longitudinal studies suggest that children who participate in homosexuality also wind up as more rebellious, more apt to abuse substances, and more apt to engage in criminality. In studies of adults, those who engage in homosexuality are more criminal, more rebellious, more likely to be drug-users, more apt to molest children, and so on. In short, homosexual activity is a risk both to participants and non-participants alike — it impacts greater society in deleterious ways.

5) The Psychiatric Paradigm Does Not ‘Fit’ With Christianity

The core concepts of psychiatry and Christianity clash. Psychiatry stresses ‘self esteem’ and ‘self actualization’ or that people ‘act out of compulsion,’ while Christianity counsels that we are to ‘deny self’ and that each is ‘led astray by his own desires.’ Psychiatric professionals (clinicians, psychotherapists, psychologists) compete with religious professionals (priests, preachers) as to who will give advice about how we ought to live. The new paradigm would not compete with Christianity since it aims to scientifically buttress the historic Christian worldview. It would stress instead ‘what is good for all,’ ‘you can live without sex,’ and that ‘sex should be reserved for marriage.’ Scientists promoting the new paradigm would not compete with priests and preachers, but would instead be a complement to them, providing the ‘new apologetics’ for what the Church taught historically.

Implementing the New Paradigm

A natural ‘life-cycle’ is part and parcel of successfully implementing any new, major paradigm shift. This life-cycle includes three basic components: 1) research and basic science, 2) publicity and dissemination, and 3) public policy and law.

All three of these components are crucial to effecting long-term cultural change. Think, for instance, about cell phones. If cell phones caused brain cancer when used regularly over a period of several years, what would be needed to alter cell phone usage? First, there would have to be credible research demonstrating the harmful effects of cell phone use, and further research to delineate whether those effects extended to all cell phones, just some, or only after a certain level of usage.

Second, those scientists discovering the cell phone side-effects would have to publicize their findings at scientific meetings and in scientific journals. Moreover, due to the seriousness of the potential threat to public health and the large number of users who both enjoy and have come to depend on their cell phones, other ‘watchdog’ organizations would have to make a serious effort to communicate the findings to the public and to issue warnings to cell phone users. They would also need to alert the general media and lobby for widespread and repeated broadcast of health warnings.

Third, given the vast financial investment in the cell phone market and the stakes involved, substantial political efforts might be needed to influence state and federal governments to restrict, re-structure, or legislate against cell phone usage. Various laws and/or administrative decisions might be necessary to maximize the public health, including perhaps limits on the types of cell phones that could be used, or for how long. Legislative bodies might need to fund/seed research initiatives to find better cell phone technology that would not cause cancer.


As this quasi-hypothetical example illustrates, each ‘life-cycle’ component entails significant effort, organization, and money. Unfortunately, very little money or effort is being spent right now to promote the new paradigm. In terms of basic research, only one organization is currently engaged in primary research on homosexuality: Family Research Institute [FRI]. While its two primary scientists are both listed among the top 15 published researchers worldwide on this topic, and one of them is a reviewer for the British Medical Journal, their scientific output is far exceeded by the combined efforts of pro-homosexual academics across the globe.

No other pro-family organization or Christian college or university does primary research in this area. Further, sexuality in general — and homosexuality in particular — is an emotion-laden topic and generally the subject of social, not ‘hard,’ science. As the conservative uproar over Alfred Kinsey and the 2004 biographical film about Kinsey demonstrate, many potential donors are skittish about funding any ‘science’ related to sexuality; some go so far as to claim that the study of sex is not science at all.

Compared to technology, of course, it is much harder to measure the effects of particular sexual behaviors or the impacts of sexual social policy. And the psychiatric paradigm is so entrenched in academia that even when such scientific studies are done, it is often difficult to get permission to present counter-evidence or contrary findings at scientific meetings, or to publish facts counter to the current paradigm in scientific journals. This has had a chilling effect on those conservatives in academia who might otherwise be willing to support and defend the new paradigm.

In addition, there seems to be little understanding among pro-family conservatives as to why such primary research is even needed. As opposed to those conservative journalists and broadcasters who developed and exploited alternative media outlets when they couldn’t get a fair hearing on the major networks, there has been almost no funding or support of alternative scientific outlets by which the new paradigm might be buttressed and disseminated.

Yet the scientific enterprise is truly key to a winning strategy. Because science is both elitist and highly competitive, it has garnered the admiration — and even awe — of non-scientists, while at the same time often befuddling them in its complexity. What many conservatives do not realize is how very difficult it is to be a top-notch scientist. While there are hundreds of thousands of professionals across the world engaged in science of one form or another, the ‘cream of the scientific crop’ rises to the top through the process of publishing in the scientific literature. Consider these facts: only 1% of Ph.D.s and M.D.s ever publish in a scientific journal; only 2% of those who publish ever place articles in one of the top handful of premier science journals; and only 10% of this last group is ever chosen to serve as ‘peer reviewers’ for those top journals, with the task of judging the quality of other scientists’ work. Nevertheless, one of the scientists at the Family Research Institute has been selected to do just that: be a peer-reviewer for the British Medical Journal, one of most well-respected scientific journals in the world.

The point is that, while very difficult, it is possible to do and publish high-quality science from a conservative perpective. But it has to be a primary focus and goal of one’s work. Further, in academia, universities spend large chunks of resources supporting the research efforts of their scholars and providing a conducive environment for those activities. That kind of support for science is almost non-existent in conservative circles.

Indeed, consider Paul Weyrich, founder of the Heritage Foundation and one of the fathers of the modern conservative movement. On July 25, 2005, he issued a bittersweet, but incisive asssessment of our current state of affairs:

“At the heart of the challenge facing the conservative agenda lays one simple fact: While we focused our efforts on politics, our opponents on the left focused instead on culture.

“Each of us won. Compared to where the conservative movement was the year I came to Washington, 1967, we are today immensely stronger politically. Republicans, most of whom are at least nominally conservative, control both Houses of Congress and the White House. That is success on a grand scale.

“Regrettably, our opponents have won an equally large victory over our culture. What was called the ‘counter-culture’ in the 1960s now controls almost every cultural venue: the entertainment industry (which is now the most powerful force in our culture), the government schools, the media, and even many churches. The ideology usually known as ‘Political Correctness,’ which is really the cultural Marxism of the infamous Frankfurt School, is using every type of cultural institution in our country to achieve its purpose, which is the destruction of traditional Western culture and the Christian religion. All we have to do is look around us and compare what we see with the America of the 1950s to understand how vast their victory is. The old sins have become virtues and the old virtues have become sins.

“The nub of the problem is this: Culture is stronger than politics. Despite everything conservatives have achieved in politics, the left’s cultural victory trumps ours. That is why even when we win election after election, our country continues to deteriorate.”

Three-Pronged Effort

We would submit that an important part of the left’s cultural victory has been their domination of science, particularly that surrounding sex. That is why we propose the following three-pronged effort to bolster basic research on issues of sexuality, including homosexuality:

1. Establishment of a private foundation or endowment designed to fund primary scientific research in these areas, conducted under the framework of the historic Christian worldview.

2. Establishment of a conservative sexuality ‘think-tank’ and scientific consortium, having as its primary aim the honest generation and gathering of new empirical facts about sexuality and homosexuality, careful scientific critique of existing research, publication and dissemination of new facts in the scientific literature, and enabling the networking and partnership of like-minded scientists from around the globe.

3. Expansion and systematic funding of the Family Research Institute. As previously mentioned, we are currently the only conservative organization conducting primary research on these topics. Additional funding of FRI makes sense for the following reasons: a) we have already established a presence in the scientific literature over the last 30 years, but would like to expand our efforts and reach, b) we are currently supported by a small number of donors with a minimal budget (<$200,000/yr), c) more than one scientific organization is needed to effectively wage the gay rights battle.

To understand where things stand, FRI has the equivalent of two full-time researchers on staff. We believe this would need to be increased to at least 6 or 7 professionals. Assuming $80,000 to $100,000/year for professional salaries and $30,000 to $40,000/year per professional for ancillary staff, a commitment of between $650,000/yr and $900,000/yr would be needed to generate the volume of professional papers that would be required at scientific meetings and in scientific journals to get the scientific community to take serious notice.


As to publicity, several organizations exist within the religious conservative movement that could potentially ‘sell’ the scholarly and scientific facts supporting the new paradigm. Some of these, including Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, and others, already have large followings.

However, to be effective in the secular as well religious arenas, it is likely that these groups would have to significantly lighten their current moralistic thrust, a change that may not sit well with their current leadership or support base. Furthermore, they would have to end their support of the psychiatric paradigm, a difficult change given its current ubiquity and the ways in which psychiatric and Christian concepts have been melded. In particular, they would need to sharply reduce (or preferably end) their support for the ‘ex-gay movement,’ an approach which is psychiatrically anchored and highly Freudian in viewpoint.

To those who would point to recent actions on marriage by these groups, keep in mind the narrow scope of these efforts. Many pro-family conservatives have lent public support to the same Federal Marriage Amendment favored by President Bush, one which would explicitly allow states to institute and legalize near-marriage or marriage equivalents for homosexuals. None of the major pro-family groups has any solution or alternative to Lawrence v. Texas — which legalized sodomy across the nation — other than to criticize the Supreme Court and bemoan its lurch to the left.

In addition, some of these same groups have lobbied for enactment of ‘reciprocal beneficiary’ laws, in states such as Hawaii and Colorado, whereby homosexuals are granted a state endorsement to sign up for many of the benefits of marriage without being labeled as ‘married’ or having to form an explicit civil union or domestic partnership. These reciprocal beneficiary agreements are billed by pro-family conservatives as only providing more affordable access to rights that homosexuals currently enjoy anyway, and have been proposed as a compromise to avoid the need for gay marriage. In reality, however, they are another form of ‘marriage lite,’ creating an explicit government sanctioning of homosexual couplings where none existed, and often creating new rights for homosexuals while further lessening the legal distinction of marriage.

Lobbying for reciprocal beneficiary agreements is another defensive move, designed to find something, anything, that might keep the narrow definition of marriage intact. But none of the pro-family organizations has made any concerted, systematic effort to keep homosexual teachers out of schools, bar homosexuals from adopting or fostering children, or to counter the wave of corporate and government entities that have adopted pro-gay preferences or anti-discrimination clauses in their by-laws or charters. None has proposed concrete steps for reversing Lawrence’s legalization of sodomy. Nor have there been calls to overturn Lawrence, even though a Federal Marriage amendment would do nothing to change the current legal status of sodomy, and even though many of those same conservatives regularly call for the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Instead, the current strategy has been almost exclusively about protecting man-woman marriage, period.

Our goal is to change public policy and law for the better by making homosexuality socially unacceptable and forcing gay rights back ‘into the closet.’ To do this in our current cultural climate will require a serious commitment to empiricism and honest science — this is our ace in the hole, and it must lead and reinforce. Moralism and appeals to Biblical morality are not likely to be effective in the long run except when ‘preaching to the choir.’ Over the past 25 to 30 years during which gay rights has been thrust into the American public consciousness, polls show that public acceptance of gays in the military has risen from 51% to 80%, approval of homosexuals as elementary school teachers has increased from 27% to 61%, and willingness to vote for a well-qualified homosexual presidential candidate has jumped from 26% to 59%. Current tactics — which have primarily appealed to history, tradition, and morality — have not worked and are not working.

Unfortunately, the recent political successes on marriage have likely wedded existing pro-family organizations to their current strategies. Even if this were not the case, it would still be very difficult to get already established organizations to ‘change their tune.’ Consequently, we believe that a new organization should be established that would focus exclusively on matters of sexuality and sexual morality, as seen through the lens of science and empiricism. This organization would be created to:

1. Serve as a publicity and public relations clearinghouse for the new science on sexuality and homosexuality,

2. Promote new scientific information in laymen’s terms and attempt to build a presence within the major media,

3. Host conventions, and provide training, seminars, and popularly-written materials to Christian activists and concerned individuals of all walks of life,

4. Lobby state and federal governments for specific legislation and administrative directives that will — using evidence from public health and science as the basis — promote the traditional Christian viewpoint on homosexuality.

The organization closest to what we have in mind is the Howard Center for Family, Religion, and Society. It reviews the professional literature regarding family life, sponsors conventions, and publishes books with a budget of $650,000/year. While it touches upon homosexuality from time to time, its main emphasis is upon demonstrating the superiority of the married two-parent family and the importance of religion to successful family life. It does not publish original scientific papers, nor does it critique articles that appear in scientific outlets. Primarily it acts as a clearinghouse and organizer of conventions to bring like-minded individuals and organizations together.

Another possible model would be the more recently formed Council on Family Law, jointly sponsored by the Institute for American Values, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and the Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law, and Culture. Each of these organizations is independent, non-partisan, and seeks to foster interdisciplinary research on marriage and family law and social policy by bringing together scholars from around the world, united by a common mission. As the Institute for American Values puts it:

“In all of its work, the Institute seeks to bring fresh analyses and new research to the attention of policy makers in government, opinion makers in the media, and decision makers in the private sector.”

Public Policy

The final piece of this puzzle — public policy and law — must also emphasize and rest upon empiricism. The arguments upholding Georgia’s sodomy law in the 1986 Supreme Court decision in Bowers v. Hardwick were based on history, tradition and precedent. The high court affirmed those arguments then, but rejected similar appeals to precedent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case. Public morality and majority sentiment — as they have evolved over time in the Christian West — are not enough to stop gay rights. This was clear from the Supreme Court’s Romer v. Evans decision in 1994 rejecting Colorado’s majority vote on Amendment 2.

What is needed are legislative and public policy strategies that can be argued on the basis of public health, risk assessment, and scientific fact. Laws and directives should be proposed and solicited which have as their motivating basis the greater personal and social dangers/risks associated with homosexual practice. Only by incorporating such bases into legislative or administrative proposals will our courts be forced to determine the merits of such laws on the basis of the public good, rationality, and scientific support.

To this end, we would propose the following as first examples of initiatives that ought to be launched.


  • Legislation making penile-anal sex illegal. Engaging in penile-anal sex would be considered a felony, punishable by 1-5 years in prison, or a fine of $2,000 per occurrence.

Penile-anal sex and intravenous [IV] drug use have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of HIV infections and AIDS, an exceptionally costly disease. Currently, possessing the equipment and/or substances to engage in shooting IV drugs is illegal because such behavior spreads blood-borne disease through needle and works sharing. Sodomy constitutes a public health threat, a drain on the public treasury, and fosters a subculture that attempts to expand the number of users. This bill would specifically correct the oversight that penile-anal sex, though probably responsible for the majority of HIV infections in the U.S., is currently legal.

Those who get infected from shooting drugs endanger their lives, the lives of children they may carry, the health care workers who treat them, those who receive bodily tissue from them (e.g., blood products, organ transplants), and those with whom they come in contact to get and share IV drug-shooting equipment. The state has a compelling interest in suppressing this activity, since 1) the health care costs for diseases contracted by these means (e.g., HIV, hepatitis) are so substantial, and must be borne by society, and 2) those who shoot IV drugs encourage others to participate with them.

The practice of penile-anal sex is similar, in that those who engage in it endanger their lives, the lives of children they may carry, the health care workers who treat them, those who receive bodily tissue from them, and those with whom they engage in penile-anal sex. Diseases caught from penile-anal sex entail substantial health care costs, which must be borne by the state. For this reason, and the fact that those who engage in penile-anal sex encourage others to participate with them, the state has a compelling interest in suppressing this behavior.

Marriage Protection

  • Extend the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] by adding to it the provision that “any political entity giving the same set or approximately the same set of benefits to any institution other than marriage (e.g., domestic partnerships, civil unions, or the equivalent) is denied Federal funding, starting with a 1% reduction in Federal funding to that entity for the first week that the entity is in violation, a 2% reduction for a violation during the second week, and so on until either full compliance with the intent of Congress to protect the institution of marriage is met, or all Federal funding is withdrawn from that political entity.”
  • Introduce federal and state bills declaring that “because of the risks to individual and public health, and the high social costs associated with HIV infection, which currently accounts for approximately 1% of Gross Domestic Product and is still growing, as well as the many other infections (e.g., syphilis, hepatitis C) that are spreading sexually through the populace by sexual contact and commerce, any political entity that receives Federal [or state] funding and passes some form of domestic partnership or any public or private entity that does business with the Federal [or state] government and provides benefits for unmarried couples, must require blood tests of the same sort required to donate to the blood bank. These tests must be required as of the date that a partnership begins in the case of political entities granting domestic partnerships, or as of the date such benefits are conferred in the case of private entities providing benefits. Further, if a prospective member of the couple fails to pass any of the tests associated with blood donation, that partnership cannot commence until both partners are medically certified as uninfected with any of the pathogens that would disqualify blood for donation; neither can benefits be granted by the entity that confers benefits.”

Entities that did not comply with this second initiative would be denied Federal or state funding, including a progressive reduction in total Federal or state contract awards, until either compliance was met or all funding was removed. Enactment of the first bill would mean conservatives would not have to wait years for a (difficult and unlikely) Constitutional amendment on marriage. The second bill would protect individual and public health and the taxpayer purse should some form of domestic partnership be granted to those having sex outside the bonds of matrimony.

Further, Congress is given sole discretion over the public purse under Sections 8 and 9 of Article I of the Constitution. There is ample precedent for Congress to demand actions by the states or cities in order to retain Federal funding (and similarly for state legislatures to act within their domains). Federal highway funds are withheld, for instance, if a 0.08% standard for ‘drunk driving’ is not enacted by each state. Minnesota was the very last hold-out on this provision, but finally complied as of July 2005.

Protection of Children

  • Enact a Federal requirement of full disclosure of all sexual molestations of foster and adoptive children, classified by sex and marital status of each perpetrator and further cross-sorted by sex of child, for every entity receiving Federal funding.

Every state would be required to list substantiated (or reported) instances of sexual abuse, physical abuse, and neglect in such a way that the empirical risks of same-sex and opposite-sex sexual abuse in foster and adoptive parent homes could be determined and investigated. Currently, this kind of information is not mandated nor regularly reported by any state or agency. And yet there is selective evidence that the risk of same-sex sexual abuse is substantially higher than the risk of opposite-sex abuse, evidence that must be confirmed before implementing new, health-based, public policy on foster and adoptive parenting.

  • If, after full disclosure, a year’s data from the states shows the same pattern of disproportionate sexual abuse by those who engage in homosexuality, then legislation would be proposed to ban Federal [or state] funding of any entity’s programs for children if that entity permits fostering or adoption by homosexuals — that is, those who identify themselves as bisexual, homosexual, transgendered, lesbian, gay, etc. or who, as adults (aged 18 or older) have engaged in same-sex sexual relationships.


  • Enact a Federal requirement that school districts treat homosexual sex as a public health hazard. Any district that treats homosexual sex as equivalent to heterosexual sex would have its Federal funding reduced by 1% per week of non-compliance.
  • Enact a Federal requirement that at least by 7th grade, each pupil in every school must be informed of: 1) the health hazards of homosexual sex, including STDs and the shortening of the lifespan, and 2) the health benefits of marriage, including lesser risks of STDs and the lengthening of the lifespan. Any school district that fails to inform its pupils in this regard is to have its Federal funding reduced by 1% per week of non-compliance.
  • Enact a Federal requirement that school districts must not have a non-discrimination policy in regard to homosexual teachers. Any district that has a non-discrimination policy regarding homosexuals would have its Federal funding reduced by 1% per week of non-compliance.
  • Enact a federal requirement that schools and day care facilities must fully disclose attempted or actual sexual molestations of pupils to the U.S. Department of Education in a timely manner. All those convicted (or who plead no contest) to a sexual charge involving a child must be reported, by name, Social Security number, fingerprints, etc. to a register maintained by the U.S. Department of Education. Further, mandate that no teacher or worker at a school or day care facility — whether public or private — can be employed if they have been convicted of, or are currently being prosecuted for, sexual abuse of a child.
  • Enact a Federal requirement that any administrator or school board who knowingly hires a homosexual or a convicted child molester as a teacher or worker at a school or day care facility is to be fined $50,000.


It took Christianity 300 years to accomplish its transformation of society regarding homosexuality. It has taken psychiatry about 100 years to partially transform the West’s treatment. Today, it is likely that an investment of at least 20 years will be required to dent the hold that the psychiatric paradigm has on elite and popular thinking. At the current pace — unless a new paradigm is adopted and accepted — near total acquiescence to the gay rights movement is almost assured over the next 20 to 40 years. That is why this effort and fight — using a new line of attack and the very weapon psychiatry launched against Christianity — is so critical.

What You Can Do

We can no longer sit on the sidelines and hope that our culture will somehow rebound on its own. Apathy is nothing but a recipe for disaster. We can no longer afford to be ignorant of the aims, nature, and stratagems of the homosexual movement, no matter how distasteful or repugnant the subject may seem. And a defeatist attitude that it is ‘already too late’ will only guarantee certain failure.

FRI believes we can make a difference. The tide can be turned, difficult though that may sound. But we need your involvement and the help of other committed individuals. Specifically, what we are asking for is the following:

1. Financial resources. We need financial backing both to expand the mission of Family Research Institute and to seed and fund the new foundation, research consortium, and clearinghouse organizations described earlier. This will require significant investment on the part of several individuals and/or entities.

2. Administrative and legal resources. We need individuals with excellent business, management, and legal expertise to oversee the creation and development of the new sexuality organizations.

3. Name recognition. We need well-known and well-respected individuals from all walks of professional life to publicly lend their names and support to this effort and to serve as board members and advisors.

4. Scientific expertise and collaboration. We need additional researchers and academicians willing to collaborate with FRI, even at the risk of public ridicule and/or professional censure, for the sake of pursuing and researching the empirical truth about homosexuality.

5. Public relations and lobbying expertise. We need media-savvy individuals and political veterans who will help bring this fight to both Congress, state legislatures, and to our national media at all levels.

Please join with us in this undertaking. We can only make progress by uniting together under a strategic plan that makes sense. Consider carefully whether any other initiative is better worth your time, money, and involvement. Many problems in our culture exist, to be sure. But what will have the most far-reaching impacts on your children, their families, and the generations to come? Put in another way, what is it about our way of life that is most worth preserving?

May we all have the courage of our convictions to engage this battle.

FRR Dec 2008 – Collapse of Evangelical Leaders on Homosexuality

Evangelicals were John McCain’s most reliable supporters in the 2008 presidential contest. Exit polls had white Evangelicals voting 74% for him (black Evangelicals, of course, went Barack Obama’s way). This degree of ‘solidarity’ is about as high as it gets among the coalition that makes up the Republican Party. In contrast, 83% of white Jews and 97% of blacks voted for Obama.

Evangelicals were also the most reliable voters against gay causes. Evangelicals voted against gay marriage 81% strong in California — where only the name ‘marriage’ was protected, since gay civil unions have all the rights of marriage within the state. They also went against gay marriage 81% strong in Florida — where civil unions were abolished by the vote — and voted 81% against gay marriage in Arizona.

So Evangelicals were stronger against gay marriage — by about 10% — than they were for John McCain.

Evangelicals were somewhat less protective of children (or perhaps confused), voting 65% against gay adoption in Arkansas. Overall, one could point to Evangelicals — who make up almost a quarter of the electorate — as the strongest opponents of gay rights, even as one could point to Jews as gays’ strongest religious supporters (62% of Jews voted against the Florida marriage amendment and thus not to abolish homosexual civil unions or the possibility of gay marriage). So much for the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ having much political meaning.

Leadership Disconnect

Given these voting patterns, there is a substantial disconnect between the Evangelical rank and file and many in the Evangelical leadership. On December 2nd, Richard Cizik, the Chief Lobbyist and Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) said on National Public Radio that

I would willingly say that I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition — I don’t think.

Who knows what Cizik would ‘unwillingly say,’ but what he said was quite enough. After all, the NAE claims to represent 45,000 U.S. churches — churches that claim allegiance to the same Bible that calls homosexual behavior an ‘abomination.’

Yet, it is hard to say whether Cizik topped Dr. Neil Clark Warren. Dr. Warren has in recent years made a name for himself advertising his eHarmony online dating service. Evangelicals, in particular, have thronged to eHarmony, making Dr. Warren wealthy. So what did Dr. Warren do when he was sued in New Jersey by a homosexual who claimed he was being discriminated against because he couldn’t get a gay date on eHarmony?

‘Fold’ is the answer.

Readers of FRR may recall that New Jersey wanted the Boy Scouts to use gay scoutmasters because of its gay rights law. Yet when the dust settled at the U.S. Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts were vindicated — their Constitutional right of association trumped New Jersey’s gay rights law. Surely, a website dedicated to heterosexual marriage would be free of having to also be dedicated to homosexual trysts.

Despite this precedent, when eHarmony was pressed by New Jersey’s attorney general, it decided to just fold. And a magnificent fold it was. In an out-of-court settlement, Warren’s enterprise agreed to cover $50,000 in administrative costs for the Attorney Generals’ office, pay the homosexual $5,000 for his trouble, and give free six-month memberships to the first 10,000 homosexuals who register for a new ‘egayharmony’ site! (Which, by the way, is not equal, but ‘separate but equal’ treatment — shades of the Jim Crow laws before the Civil Rights act).

An enterprise that regularly touted its wares on Focus on the Family radio, folded rather than stand up for even the most rudimentary Christian principle. Now, those who use eHarmony will know that they are helping homosexuals to ‘hook up,’ spread disease, create generalized mayhem, and flaunt their sexuality in front of God, society, and the rest of the world. Bad? Certainly. Worst? Hard to say.

New Lows With Prop 8

Supporters of Proposition 8 in California, including Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family and Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church, hit a number of new lows.

As noted, Proposition 8 reserved the name ‘marriage’ for the union of a man and a woman — but nothing more. In part because of the campaign for Proposition 22 in 2000 — a campaign in which those opposed to gay marriage said that they didn’t object to homosexuality, didn’t care about what homosexuals did, didn’t care whether gays got civil unions, etc. — California passed several laws favoring gay rights, with legislators and homosexual activists citing these very ‘don’t cares.’

Those laws require pro-gay ‘education’ about homosexuality in school, the right to ‘civil unions’ as the equivalent of marriage in all but name, and all kinds of special protections and legal enhancements for those who enjoy homosexual activity. So unlike Florida’s pro-marriage proposition, California’s was exceedingly narrow. The only legal change required by Prop 8 would be the denial of the name ‘marriage’ to homosexual civil unions. Nothing more.

Yet the advertising for Proposition 8 — including ads sponsored by Focus on the Family Action — suggested that its passage would protect kids from pro-gay education, keep their teachers from ‘coming out’ to students, keep homosexuality a private matter, and the like. None of these implications or claims was true. Only the name ‘marriage’ was in play. To be sure, had it failed, homosexuals might have felt emboldened to do even more recruiting and advertising. But Prop 8 was about signage — the name on the ‘marriage store.’ The store itself had already been frittered away. As Rick Warren indicated (News One, 12/28/08), “I’m not opposed to gays having their partnership. I’m opposed to gays using the term marriage for their relationship.”

Given how far Evangelical leaders went with their rhetoric and money — about $30 million was spent by the pro-Prop 8 side, $45 million by gay activists — it can be argued that Prop 8’s passage was a victory. Yet, even with the questionable rhetoric and heavy advertising, it barely passed. Further, if Barack Obama had not been running on the Democratic ticket, it would have almost certainly failed. Why? Because most (51%) whites and Asians (who made up 69% of the electorate) voted against it. Prop 8 won because of the black vote — a vote that went 70% for Prop 8.

Of course, that’s not how Prop 8 supporters described it. Reuters (11/6/08) quoted Jeff Flint, one of the managers for the Prop 8 campaign, as saying “we won because we stuck to our guns of being pro-marriage and not anti-gay.” Gay marriage ban supporters avoided any public criticism of homosexuals, even when they said they did not want schools to “teach” gay marriage.

And all of this has happened in just the last two months! The Evangelical leadership is quickly retreating from anything resembling historic Christian principles regarding homosexuality. The same kinds of thing happened in the Episcopal Church, now famously being torn asunder by the pro-gay tilt of its leadership versus the anti-gay sentiments of the laity.

Will the disconnect between what their followers believe and what the Evangelical leadership is doing have any repercussions? The Episcopal Church leadership ‘owns’ the facilities of the denomination, so its opinions are hard and costly to oppose. After all, they might take church property away from dissident congregations. The Evangelical leadership has nothing but ‘moral suasion’ and a kind of tradition on its side. Indeed, churches usually have to pay (or donate) to be affiliated with given leaders or organizations.

The folk in the pews — as demonstrated by their votes on gay marriage — are not likely to ‘go along’ with the leadership if it wants to compromise on gay rights. Stay tuned. This, like the Episcopal mess, could be a barnburner.

Media Bias

Ever wonder why the media is so tilted to the ‘immediate’ instead of looking ahead? When a reporter doesn’t have children of his or her own, what happens after one retires or dies is of lesser moment. Out.com (10/31/08) says:

The chief political correspondent for The New York Times since 2002, Adam Nagourney, is gay, as is his predecessor in that job, Rick Berke, who started in the paper’s Washington bureau in 1986 and is now a top-level editor in New York. Likewise the Times’s lead Barack Obama reporter, Jeff Zeleny, its lead Hillary Clinton reporter, Patrick Healy, and the man who ambled behind George W. Bush in 2000, Frank Bruni. There’s Michael Finnegan, a campaign heavyweight at the Los Angeles Times, and Jonathan Darman, Newsweek’s 27-year-old wunderkind political scribe.

Gays Still Less Healthy

If gays are ‘accepted’ and ‘protected,’ if homosexuality is taught in public schools as a good thing, will gays be healthier? Such is the claim of gay activists. ‘Reduce homophobia,’ they assert, ‘and we will be as healthy as anyone. It is society’s discrimination and non-acceptance, not out lifestyle, that makes us less healthy.’

Now we have a test out of all places, Massachusetts — home to perhaps the most gay-friendly governments at the state and local level, and home to gay marriage, as well as gay ‘super rights.’ It recently reported the findings from a grand statewide survey (November 2008) in which almost 40,000 adults were interviewed. This report by the Department of Public Health used data collected from the 2001-2006 Massachusetts Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. 97.1% self-identified as straight, and 2.9% as gay/bisexual.

So, in a state that bends for all things homosexual, are gays healthier? Not a chance.

The health profile of gay/lesbian/homosexual residents was poorer than that of heterosexual/straight residents on just about every measure, including self-reported health, disability-related activity limitation, heart disease, asthma, current and past tobacco smoking, anxious mood and depression, 30-day binge drinking and substance use, and lifetime and 12-month sexual assault victimization. In addition, lesbians were more likely to be obese.

As FRI has noted and published, all the large surveys heretofore in the professional literature — from Kinsey to the U.S. 2002 National Survey Of Family Growth — have reported similar findings. And they emerged from this survey too, even though the head of the Massachusetts department of health is openly gay.

Again we ask: if discrimination is the problem, why are homosexuals less healthy in even the most gay-affirming and accepting locales? To read the whole report, search Google for ‘A Health Profile of Massachusetts Adults by Sexual Orientation Identity: Results from the 2001-2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Surveys.’

FRI’s Visit to Moldova

Pictures from our sucessful visit to Moldova. FRI is working to get the ‘ducks in a row’ in Eastern Europe, so that this distressed region does not undergo further distress with gay rights and gay marriage. Many, particularly the high school students at the advanced schools, were extremely grateful to receive the information that FRI provided.

A number of medical students chatting with Dr. Cameron after his presentation at the Medical University. The large conference room was packed (around 3-400 attended), and these students stayed afterward for about 15 minutes to discuss various aspects of homosexuality.

A number of medical students chatting with Dr. Cameron after his presentation at the Medical University. The large conference room was packed (around 3-400 attended), and these students stayed afterward for about 15 minutes to discuss various aspects of homosexuality.

Dr. Cameron standing before the Moldovan Academy of Sciences, where he spoke. Professionals and students from many different disciplines came to his 2 hour presentation.

Dr. Cameron standing before the Moldovan Academy of Sciences, where he spoke. Professionals and students from many different disciplines came to his 2 hour presentation.

One of the smaller college assemblies Dr. Cameron addressed. During his time in Moldova, Dr. Cameron addressed about 2,000 people in the various meetings. Most were college or graduate students or professionals, but a few hundred high school students and a like number of members of the general public also came.

One of the smaller college assemblies Dr. Cameron addressed. During his time in Moldova, Dr. Cameron addressed about 2,000 people in the various meetings. Most were college or graduate students or professionals, but a few hundred high school students and a like number of members of the general public also came.

Very few students were ‘sold’ on the pro-gay rights line. Indeed, most appreciated the kinds of information that would help them combat the kinds of rhetoric coming from the European Union in general, and Sweden in particular. Most were attentive, and the questions they asked were typical of the ones Americans ask (e.g., Why do people want to engage in homosexual relations? Are they ‘born that way’ and if not, why not? How come we haven’t been told these kinds of things?).

In the middle is the Minister of Social Protection, Family, and Children, Ms. Galina Balmos. She is flanked by Dr. Cameron and his translator on the right and two of her assistants on the left. Ms. Balmos is willing to try to obtain molestation data on the children under her agency’s care, but criminal matters are handled in yet a different part of the bureaucracy. We are attempting to get the two sets of information together in one place so the data can be collated and analyzed.

In the middle is the Minister of Social Protection, Family, and Children, Ms. Galina Balmos. She is flanked by Dr. Cameron and his translator on the right and two of her assistants on the left. Ms. Balmos is willing to try to obtain molestation data on the children under her agency’s care, but criminal matters are handled in yet a different part of the bureaucracy. We are attempting to get the two sets of information together in one place so the data can be collated and analyzed.

The main press conference. Dr. Paul Cameron, being interviewed, is flanked by two translators and an official representative from the Orthodox Church. Results were broadcast accross both Moldova and a number of sister stations around Europe.

The main press conference. Dr. Paul Cameron, being interviewed, is flanked by two translators and an official representative from the Orthodox Church. Results were broadcast accross both Moldova and a number of sister stations around Europe.

Iurie Rosca, the leader of the Popular Christian Democratic (PCD) party, in the middle, flanked by Dr. Cameron and his translator, Vitalie. The PCD is the second-largest party in Moldova. Rosca said he is keen to stop gay rights and is willing to promote the idea of a collalition including PCD parties throughout Eastern Europe to stop super rights for gays and gay marriage.

Iurie Rosca, the leader of the Popular Christian Democratic (PCD) party, in the middle, flanked by Dr. Cameron and his translator, Vitalie. The PCD is the second-largest party in Moldova. Rosca said he is keen to stop gay rights and is willing to promote the idea of a collalition including PCD parties throughout Eastern Europe to stop super rights for gays and gay marriage.